About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

52 UCLA L. Rev. 1579 (2004-2005)
Can the NLRB Deter Unfair Labor Practices - Reassessing the Punitive-Remedial Distinction in Labor Law Enforcement

handle is hein.journals/uclalr52 and id is 1593 raw text is: CAN THE NLRB DETER UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES? REASSESSING THE PUNITIVE-REMEDIAL DISTINCTION IN LABOR LAW ENFORCEMENT Michael Weiner Labor law scholars have long recognized that the National Labor Relations Act no longer deters employers from committing unfair labor practices, especially during the crucial time periods of union organizing drives and first contract negotiations. As a result, the Act's promise of full freedom of association has become increasingly illusory. Recent scholarship suggests that discharges based on union activity-the classic employer unfair labor practice-are now commonplace, in large part because employers committed to union avoidance consider them merely a cost of doing business. The remedies available to the National Labor Relations Board to redress labor law violations simply are not burdensome enough to deter unlawful conduct. Scholars and policymakers have recognized this fact and made various proposals for reform. But scholars have not adequately examined the reasoning underlying the strict limitations on the Board's remedial power. The statute itself appears to supply broad discretion, stating plainly that the Board is empowered to direct offenders to take such affirmative action ... as will effectuate the policies of this Act. Shortly after the law was enacted, however, the U.S. Supreme Court severely constrained that discretion, holding in Republic Steel Corp. v. NLRB that Board remedies may not be punitive in nature and that deterrence is not a permissible rationale on which to premise a particular remedy. Since that time, courts have used the Republic Steel rule to cut back on the Board's remedial authority. But a comprehensive examination of the basis for, and application of, that rule remains missing in the academic literature. In this Comment, the author provides that examination by surveying the application of Republic Steel to various remedies attempted by the Board and by analyzing whether the rule has any basis in the NLRA. The Comment reveals that the rule never has been applied in a coherent manner and that it lacks support in the legislative history and the statutory language. The author argues that Republic Steel has resulted in confusion and inconsistency, and has played no small part in the Board's inability to deter unfair labor practices effec- tively. Furthermore, the author maintains that Congress intended the Board to * Articles Editor, UCLA Law Revrew, Volume 52. J.D., UCLA School of Law, 2005; B.A., UCLA, 2001. Thanks to Professor Bernard Gold for his guidance, to the UCLA Law Review staff for its work in bringing this Comment to publication, and to my parents and Alexis for their love and support. 1579

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most