Employment Law Employment Law (Management 445)(Management 445)

Professor Charles H. SmithProfessor Charles H. SmithLabor Law (Chapters 12, 19 and 20)Labor Law (Chapters 12, 19 and 20)

Fall 2006Fall 2006

Introduction to Labor LawIntroduction to Labor Law

At common law, unions were held to be At common law, unions were held to be criminal conspiracies; courts did not criminal conspiracies; courts did not hesitate to throw union leaders and hesitate to throw union leaders and members in jail as well as issue injunctions members in jail as well as issue injunctions stopping union activity.stopping union activity.

While individual workers were free to While individual workers were free to negotiate for better pay and working negotiate for better pay and working conditions under the “freedom of contract” conditions under the “freedom of contract” theory, combining their efforts to achieve theory, combining their efforts to achieve the same goal was thought to be antisocial.the same goal was thought to be antisocial.

Early Judicial Involvement in the Early Judicial Involvement in the American Labor MovementAmerican Labor Movement

Philadelphia CordwainersPhiladelphia Cordwainers case (Pa. 1806) – shoemakers case (Pa. 1806) – shoemakers wanted raise from 25wanted raise from 25¢ to 75¢ per pair; they were found ¢ to 75¢ per pair; they were found guilty of conspiracy to raise their wages; each man fined guilty of conspiracy to raise their wages; each man fined $8.$8.

People v. MelvinPeople v. Melvin (N.Y. 1809) – conspiracy charge dismissed (N.Y. 1809) – conspiracy charge dismissed since workers could join together in effort to raise wages so since workers could join together in effort to raise wages so long as means not “of a nature too arbitrary and coercive, long as means not “of a nature too arbitrary and coercive, and which went to deprive their fellow citizens of rights as and which went to deprive their fellow citizens of rights as precious as any they contended for” (see the jury precious as any they contended for” (see the jury instruction at pages 345-46).instruction at pages 345-46).

People v. FisherPeople v. Fisher (N.Y. 1835) – workers convicted under (N.Y. 1835) – workers convicted under statute that read: “If two or more persons shall statute that read: “If two or more persons shall conspire . . . to commit any act injurious to the public conspire . . . to commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to trade or commerce, or for the health, to public morals, or to trade or commerce, or for the perversion or obstruction of justice or the due perversion or obstruction of justice or the due administration of the laws—they shall be deemed guilty of a administration of the laws—they shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.”misdemeanor.”

Early Judicial Involvement in the Early Judicial Involvement in the American Labor Movement cont.American Labor Movement cont.

Commonwealth v. HuntCommonwealth v. Hunt (Mass. 1842) – considered to be the (Mass. 1842) – considered to be the landmark case in American labor movementlandmark case in American labor movement Statement of applicable law – “it is a criminal and Statement of applicable law – “it is a criminal and

indictable offence, for two or more to confederate and indictable offence, for two or more to confederate and combine together, by concerted means, to do that which combine together, by concerted means, to do that which is unlawful or criminal, to the injury of the public, or is unlawful or criminal, to the injury of the public, or portions or classes of the community, or even to the portions or classes of the community, or even to the rights of an individual . . . a conspiracy must be a rights of an individual . . . a conspiracy must be a combination of two or more persons, by some concerted combination of two or more persons, by some concerted action, to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, action, to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means.”unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means.”

Court noted that no unlawful purpose was shown and “it Court noted that no unlawful purpose was shown and “it must be averred and proved that the actual, if not the must be averred and proved that the actual, if not the avowed object of the association, was criminal.”avowed object of the association, was criminal.”

The facts of this case were not really different from the The facts of this case were not really different from the facts of prior cases; why did the court in facts of prior cases; why did the court in HuntHunt come to a come to a different conclusion?different conclusion?

Post-Civil War EraPost-Civil War Era Knights of Labor – locals represented all workers (skilled Knights of Labor – locals represented all workers (skilled

and unskilled); problem since unskilled workers could be and unskilled); problem since unskilled workers could be easily replaced, which reduced locals’ leverage.easily replaced, which reduced locals’ leverage.

Socialists – inspired by Marx; more of a political movement Socialists – inspired by Marx; more of a political movement later eclipsed by Communists; labor issues represented by later eclipsed by Communists; labor issues represented by Industrial Workers of the World (IWW or “Wobblies”), a Industrial Workers of the World (IWW or “Wobblies”), a radical group that engaged in many violent strikes.radical group that engaged in many violent strikes.

American Federal of Labor (AFL) – emphasized union American Federal of Labor (AFL) – emphasized union activities; open to locals of unskilled workers but dominated activities; open to locals of unskilled workers but dominated by skilled workers.by skilled workers.

Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) – organized Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) – organized unskilled production workers (auto, steel and mine unskilled production workers (auto, steel and mine industries); merged with AFL in 1955 to form dominant industries); merged with AFL in 1955 to form dominant body in American labor movement.body in American labor movement.

““Yellow-dog” contracts – employment contract requiring Yellow-dog” contracts – employment contract requiring employee to agree to not join a union.employee to agree to not join a union.

Recent Trends in American Labor Recent Trends in American Labor MovementMovement

Post-WW2 – union membership peaked in early Post-WW2 – union membership peaked in early 1950’s but have been steadily declining since 1950’s but have been steadily declining since then due to increasing competition from domestic then due to increasing competition from domestic non-union workforce and overseas imports, oil-non-union workforce and overseas imports, oil-induced inflation of 1970’s, general decline in induced inflation of 1970’s, general decline in manufacturing sector, and relocation of workforce manufacturing sector, and relocation of workforce from unionized Northeast to non-union South.from unionized Northeast to non-union South.

Early 1950’s – 1/3 of manufacturing workforce Early 1950’s – 1/3 of manufacturing workforce unionized.unionized.

2000 – about 14% of workforce unionized.2000 – about 14% of workforce unionized. Case study – “Making Labor Relevant in the ‘New Case study – “Making Labor Relevant in the ‘New

Economy’: Organizing in Silicon Valley” (pages Economy’: Organizing in Silicon Valley” (pages 354-55).354-55).

Management’s Legal TacticsManagement’s Legal Tactics InjunctionsInjunctions

Court order commanding person(s) or organization to stop Court order commanding person(s) or organization to stop doing illegal act (either continuing or threatened)doing illegal act (either continuing or threatened)

Often used to stop strikes because injunction violator can be Often used to stop strikes because injunction violator can be jailed for contempt of court.jailed for contempt of court.

Company supposed to show inadequacy of remedy at law Company supposed to show inadequacy of remedy at law and irreparable harm; in other words, later money judgment and irreparable harm; in other words, later money judgment would not be sufficient to address damage to company; in would not be sufficient to address damage to company; in reality, harm often presumed due to union activity and reality, harm often presumed due to union activity and injunction would be broadly-drafted in order to stop all union injunction would be broadly-drafted in order to stop all union activity (not just specific strike).activity (not just specific strike).

““Yellow-dog” contracts – see prior slide.Yellow-dog” contracts – see prior slide. Antitrust laws (such as Sherman Act of 1890 and Clayton Act of Antitrust laws (such as Sherman Act of 1890 and Clayton Act of

1914) – originally intended to prevent monopolies and other 1914) – originally intended to prevent monopolies and other anti-competitive activity by large companies, but early cases anti-competitive activity by large companies, but early cases allowed antitrust laws to be used against unions; allowed antitrust laws to be used against unions; e.g.e.g., , Duplex Duplex Printing Press Company v. DeeringPrinting Press Company v. Deering (1921) (no general immunity (1921) (no general immunity for unions despite Clayton Act for unions despite Clayton Act § 20 restricted issuance of labor § 20 restricted issuance of labor injunctions).injunctions).

Development of Federal Labor Development of Federal Labor StatutesStatutes

Starting in the 1930’s, Congress passed several laws Starting in the 1930’s, Congress passed several laws intending to outlaw management tactics set forth on previous intending to outlaw management tactics set forth on previous slide.slide.

Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932 Prohibited federal courts from issuing labor injunctions Prohibited federal courts from issuing labor injunctions

except under specific circumstances, such as open-court except under specific circumstances, such as open-court hearing with opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses; hearing with opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses; also, company had to show actual or threatened unlawful also, company had to show actual or threatened unlawful acts by union.acts by union.

““Yellow-dog” contracts violate U.S. public policy and thus Yellow-dog” contracts violate U.S. public policy and thus not enforceable in federal courts.not enforceable in federal courts.

Many states enacted similar laws for state courts.Many states enacted similar laws for state courts. See page 360 for list of protected union activities and See page 360 for list of protected union activities and

definition of “labor dispute.”definition of “labor dispute.” Case study – Case study – New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.

(pages 361-63).(pages 361-63).

Development of Federal Labor Development of Federal Labor Statutes cont.Statutes cont.

Railway Labor Act of 1926Railway Labor Act of 1926 Permitted rail workers to designate own Permitted rail workers to designate own

bargaining representative free of employer bargaining representative free of employer interference.interference.

Three-step dispute resolution procedure – Three-step dispute resolution procedure – mediation, arbitration, emergency board of mediation, arbitration, emergency board of investigation (including “cooling-off” periods investigation (including “cooling-off” periods designed to permit time to negotiate settlements).designed to permit time to negotiate settlements).

National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 Major industries would operate under codes of fair Major industries would operate under codes of fair

competition developed by trade associations for competition developed by trade associations for each industry.each industry.

No input from organized labor.No input from organized labor.

Development of Federal Labor Development of Federal Labor Statutes cont.Statutes cont.

National Labor Board (1933)National Labor Board (1933) Comprised of seven members – three Comprised of seven members – three

management and three labor plus Senator management and three labor plus Senator Wagner; tended to vote in blocs.Wagner; tended to vote in blocs.

Very limited enforcement powers; relied mainly Very limited enforcement powers; relied mainly on “power of persuasion.”on “power of persuasion.”

Lost all respect during auto workers strike in Lost all respect during auto workers strike in 1934, when FDR had head of National 1934, when FDR had head of National Recovery Administration negotiate settlement.Recovery Administration negotiate settlement.

““Old” National Labor Relations Board (1934)Old” National Labor Relations Board (1934) Formed under NIRA, which was ruled Formed under NIRA, which was ruled

unconstitutional in 1935.unconstitutional in 1935.

National Labor Relations Act of National Labor Relations Act of 19351935

Enacted by Congress in wake of NIRA’s Enacted by Congress in wake of NIRA’s downfall.downfall.

Held to be constitutional under Commerce Held to be constitutional under Commerce Clause (Congress’ power to regulate Clause (Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce) in 1937; U.S. interstate commerce) in 1937; U.S. Supreme Court – in a 5-4 decision – Supreme Court – in a 5-4 decision – reasoned that many industries were reasoned that many industries were organized on a “national scale” making organized on a “national scale” making “interstate commerce the dominant factor “interstate commerce the dominant factor in their activities.”in their activities.”

NLRA cont.NLRA cont.

Overview – see pages 368-69Overview – see pages 368-69 Purpose of NLRA was to “eliminate the causes of Purpose of NLRA was to “eliminate the causes of

certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce . . . by encouraging . . . collective commerce . . . by encouraging . . . collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association.”workers of full freedom of association.”

Basis of NLRA was protection of employees’ rights.Basis of NLRA was protection of employees’ rights. Five practices specified as “unfair labor practices.”Five practices specified as “unfair labor practices.” Later amendments provided counterbalancing Later amendments provided counterbalancing

rights to management as well as rights by workers rights to management as well as rights by workers against their own unions.against their own unions.

Union’s Duty of Fair RepresentationUnion’s Duty of Fair Representation

Once certified, union has duty of fair representation, Once certified, union has duty of fair representation, which is an obligation created by the courts requiring which is an obligation created by the courts requiring union to fairly represent all employees of the bargaining union to fairly represent all employees of the bargaining unit.unit.

Issues includeIssues include Discrimination based on race, etc. by union in Discrimination based on race, etc. by union in

representing bargaining unit; case study – representing bargaining unit; case study – Steele v. Steele v. Louisville & Nashville RRLouisville & Nashville RR (pages 573-75). (pages 573-75).

““Trade-offs” – union concedes certain benefit(s) in Trade-offs” – union concedes certain benefit(s) in order to get certain new benefit(s); give and take in order to get certain new benefit(s); give and take in any contract negotiation is appropriate, but how much any contract negotiation is appropriate, but how much discretion does union have?discretion does union have?

Union discretion re whether or not to arbitrate Union discretion re whether or not to arbitrate employee’s dispute; case study – employee’s dispute; case study – Hines v. Anchor Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.Motor Freight, Inc. (pages 576-78). (pages 576-78).

Union’s Duty of Fair Representation Union’s Duty of Fair Representation cont.cont.

Duty of fair representation includes duty to fairly Duty of fair representation includes duty to fairly represent all employees in bargaining unit whether represent all employees in bargaining unit whether union members or not.union members or not.

However, union can negotiate “union shop” or “agency However, union can negotiate “union shop” or “agency shop” contract unless there is a state “right to work” shop” contract unless there is a state “right to work” law that bars mandatory union membership or union law that bars mandatory union membership or union dues.dues. ““Union shop” – requires all employees in bargaining Union shop” – requires all employees in bargaining

unit to become union members within specified time.unit to become union members within specified time. ““Agency shop” – requires employees to pay union Agency shop” – requires employees to pay union

dues and fees; employer’s unilateral decision to stop dues and fees; employer’s unilateral decision to stop deducting union dues and fees violates NLRA; union deducting union dues and fees violates NLRA; union may not use non-union members’ dues and fees for may not use non-union members’ dues and fees for non-collective bargaining activities (those employees non-collective bargaining activities (those employees entitled to entitled to pro ratapro rata reduction in dues and fees); case reduction in dues and fees); case study – study – Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 776Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 776 (pages 579-81).(pages 579-81).

Union’s Duty of Fair Representation Union’s Duty of Fair Representation cont.cont.

Union liability for breach of duty of fair Union liability for breach of duty of fair representation – union can be liable for representation – union can be liable for damages to employee if shown that union damages to employee if shown that union breached duty of fair representation; breached duty of fair representation; e.g.e.g., , union wrongfully refused to handle arbitration union wrongfully refused to handle arbitration or handled it in “perfunctory” fashion.or handled it in “perfunctory” fashion.

Enforcing duty of fair representation – NLRB Enforcing duty of fair representation – NLRB does not have exclusive jurisdiction; federal does not have exclusive jurisdiction; federal and state courts also have jurisdiction; cases and state courts also have jurisdiction; cases decided under federal labor law, not state decided under federal labor law, not state contract law.contract law.

Union’s Duty of Fair Representation Union’s Duty of Fair Representation cont.cont.

Exhaustion of Internal RemediesExhaustion of Internal Remedies Many employers and union contracts feature internal Many employers and union contracts feature internal

remedies such as informal and/or formal hearings remedies such as informal and/or formal hearings ((e.g.e.g., ADR procedure such as mediation or arbitration) , ADR procedure such as mediation or arbitration) in order to process employment disputes without in order to process employment disputes without need for court intervention.need for court intervention.

Use of internal remedies generally required before Use of internal remedies generally required before lawsuit can be filed in court; consistent with policy of lawsuit can be filed in court; consistent with policy of voluntary resolution of disputes.voluntary resolution of disputes.

Exhaustion may not be required if use of internal Exhaustion may not be required if use of internal remedies would be futile, such as where union and remedies would be futile, such as where union and employer are cooperating in violation of employee employer are cooperating in violation of employee rights or if internal remedy could not result in rights or if internal remedy could not result in complete relief sought by employee (complete relief sought by employee (e.g.e.g., , reinstatement, back pay).reinstatement, back pay).

Rights of Union MembersRights of Union Members

Union discipline of members – union cannot Union discipline of members – union cannot restrain, coerce or interfere with employee restrain, coerce or interfere with employee section 7 rights (see page 368), but union section 7 rights (see page 368), but union can fine members who cross picket line and can fine members who cross picket line and enforce payment of such fines in state enforce payment of such fines in state court.court.

Union members’ bill of rights – see page 586 Union members’ bill of rights – see page 586 for due process afforded to union member for due process afforded to union member before discipline can be imposed; case before discipline can be imposed; case study – study – Boilermakers v. HardemanBoilermakers v. Hardeman (pages (pages 587-89).587-89).

Rights of Union Members cont.Rights of Union Members cont.

Free speech and association – every Free speech and association – every union member has broad latitude to union member has broad latitude to express views subject to union rules re express views subject to union rules re reasonable and orderly conduct of reasonable and orderly conduct of meetings.meetings.

Election procedures – certain Election procedures – certain democratic procedures must be democratic procedures must be followed (see page 590); case study – followed (see page 590); case study – Herman v. Local 1011, United Herman v. Local 1011, United Steelworkers of AmericaSteelworkers of America (pages 591- (pages 591-92).92).

Other Restrictions on UnionsOther Restrictions on Unions

Duties of union officers – see lists on Duties of union officers – see lists on page 593.page 593.

Welfare and pension plans – must be Welfare and pension plans – must be handled to protect all employees’ handled to protect all employees’ interests; administrators can interests; administrators can received only one full-time salary and received only one full-time salary and be careful to keep roles as trustee be careful to keep roles as trustee and union official separate.and union official separate.

Chapter 19 – Case ProblemsChapter 19 – Case Problems

1 – duty of fair representation (page 1 – duty of fair representation (page 595).595).

2 – breach of collective bargaining 2 – breach of collective bargaining agreement and duty of fair agreement and duty of fair representation (page 595).representation (page 595).

6 – union discipline (pages 597-98).6 – union discipline (pages 597-98). 8 – duty of fair representation (pages 8 – duty of fair representation (pages

599-600).599-600).

Introduction to Public Sector Labor Introduction to Public Sector Labor RelationsRelations

Some unique issues are raised in the Some unique issues are raised in the public sector that do not pertain to the public sector that do not pertain to the private sectorprivate sector Constitutional rights of employees Constitutional rights of employees

may be implicated since employer is may be implicated since employer is a “state actor.”a “state actor.”

Right to strike – traditionally, public Right to strike – traditionally, public employees cannot strike though this employees cannot strike though this rule has been watered down.rule has been watered down.

Constitutional Rights of Public Constitutional Rights of Public EmployeesEmployees

What is the extent of a public employee’s 1What is the extent of a public employee’s 1stst Amendment right to free speech? Does a Amendment right to free speech? Does a public employee’s free speech rights include public employee’s free speech rights include the right to criticize the employer?the right to criticize the employer?

Case studies (see following slides)Case studies (see following slides) Connick v. MyersConnick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)., 461 U.S. 138 (1983). Garcetti v. CeballosGarcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006)., 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006). Meaney v. DeverMeaney v. Dever, 326 F.3d 283 (1, 326 F.3d 283 (1stst Cir. 2003) Cir. 2003)

(page 623).(page 623). Make your own copies of the Make your own copies of the ConnickConnick and and

Garcetti Garcetti cases for the exam since no copies cases for the exam since no copies will be provided.will be provided.

Connick v. MyersConnick v. Myers Issue was whether firing a state gov’t employee Issue was whether firing a state gov’t employee

(deputy district attorney) for distributing a (deputy district attorney) for distributing a questionnaire about internal office affairs (at the questionnaire about internal office affairs (at the district attorney’s office) violated the employee’s district attorney’s office) violated the employee’s 11stst Amendment free speech rights. Amendment free speech rights.

U.S. Supreme Court held no 1U.S. Supreme Court held no 1stst Amendment Amendment violation since employee not speaking as citizen violation since employee not speaking as citizen re public concerns but as employee re private re public concerns but as employee re private concerns, and public employer not required to concerns, and public employer not required to tolerate action he reasonably believed would tolerate action he reasonably believed would disrupt the office, undermine his authority and disrupt the office, undermine his authority and destroy the close working relationships in the destroy the close working relationships in the office.office.

Garcetti v. CeballosGarcetti v. Ceballos

Issue was whether 1Issue was whether 1stst Amendment Amendment prohibited discipline of public employee for prohibited discipline of public employee for making statements pursuant to employee’s making statements pursuant to employee’s official duties.official duties.

U.S. Supreme Court held public employee U.S. Supreme Court held public employee does not speak as citizen when making does not speak as citizen when making statements pursuant to official duties; statements pursuant to official duties; otherwise, courts would have new and otherwise, courts would have new and intrusive role as overseer of intrusive role as overseer of communications between public employees communications between public employees and their superiors in the course of official and their superiors in the course of official business.business.

Meaney v. DeverMeaney v. Dever

Issue was whether police officer’s Issue was whether police officer’s blowing truck’s air horn as part of blowing truck’s air horn as part of demonstration during mayor’s demonstration during mayor’s inauguration was protected by the 1inauguration was protected by the 1stst Amendment.Amendment.

Federal court of appeals held that horn-Federal court of appeals held that horn-blowing was motivated by officer’s blowing was motivated by officer’s personal dislike for and desire to irritate personal dislike for and desire to irritate the mayor; neither related to public the mayor; neither related to public concern, so no 1concern, so no 1stst Amendment Amendment protection.protection.

Summary of 1Summary of 1stst Amendment Cases Amendment Cases

In all three cases, plaintiffs lost due to the “personal” nature In all three cases, plaintiffs lost due to the “personal” nature of their communicationsof their communications Connick v. MyersConnick v. Myers – plaintiff had just been transferred over – plaintiff had just been transferred over

her objection when she circulated the questionnaire in her objection when she circulated the questionnaire in the district attorney’s office.the district attorney’s office.

Garcetti v. CeballosGarcetti v. Ceballos – plaintiff was disciplined after he – plaintiff was disciplined after he questioned the honesty of a police officer’s affidavit used questioned the honesty of a police officer’s affidavit used in support of a search warrant; all communications were in support of a search warrant; all communications were intra-office.intra-office.

Meaney v. DeverMeaney v. Dever – plaintiff admitted that he wanted to – plaintiff admitted that he wanted to “piss off” the mayor and disrupt the inauguration due to “piss off” the mayor and disrupt the inauguration due to animosity between plaintiff’s family and the mayor as animosity between plaintiff’s family and the mayor as well as mayor’s denial of plaintiff’s request for a leave of well as mayor’s denial of plaintiff’s request for a leave of absence.absence.

Therefore, plaintiff needs to (1) show he/she is acting on Therefore, plaintiff needs to (1) show he/she is acting on the public’s behalf and not for his/her own personal the public’s behalf and not for his/her own personal benefit and (2) go “public” (benefit and (2) go “public” (e.g.e.g., to the media) with , to the media) with his/her concerns.his/her concerns.

Public Employees’ Right to StrikePublic Employees’ Right to Strike

Traditionally, public employees have had no right to strike Traditionally, public employees have had no right to strike though this rule has been watered down.though this rule has been watered down.

Established reasons – which have now been challenged – for Established reasons – which have now been challenged – for this prohibition against the right to strike includethis prohibition against the right to strike include Government sovereignty – government cannot delegate Government sovereignty – government cannot delegate

duties; now considered outdated due to popularity of duties; now considered outdated due to popularity of privatization of tasks (privatization of tasks (e.g.e.g., prison and airport security, road , prison and airport security, road maintenance).maintenance).

Government by contract – terms of public employment Government by contract – terms of public employment often fixed by law; however, public employees now have often fixed by law; however, public employees now have many rights held by private sector (many rights held by private sector (e.g.e.g., collective , collective bargaining).bargaining).

Distortion of the political process – once thought that public Distortion of the political process – once thought that public employers would be forced to make large concessions to employers would be forced to make large concessions to employees; not true now since use of private employees; not true now since use of private subcontractors is viable alternative to public employees.subcontractors is viable alternative to public employees.

Essential public services – questionable if all government Essential public services – questionable if all government services are actually “essential.”services are actually “essential.”

Public Employees’ Right to Strike – Public Employees’ Right to Strike – Case StudiesCase Studies

Postal Clerks v. BlountPostal Clerks v. Blount (pages 602-04). (pages 602-04). Professional Air Traffic Controllers Org. v. FLRAProfessional Air Traffic Controllers Org. v. FLRA

(pages 612-13).(pages 612-13). County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles

County Employees’ Ass’nCounty Employees’ Ass’n, 38 Cal.3d 564 , 38 Cal.3d 564 (1985).(1985).

City of Santa Ana v. Santa Ana Police City of Santa Ana v. Santa Ana Police Benevolent Ass’nBenevolent Ass’n, 207 Cal.App.3d 1568 , 207 Cal.App.3d 1568 (1989).(1989).

Make your own copies of the Make your own copies of the County SanitationCounty Sanitation and and Santa AnaSanta Ana cases for the exam since no cases for the exam since no copies will be provided.copies will be provided.

Postal Clerks v. BlountPostal Clerks v. Blount

Issue was whether public employees have Issue was whether public employees have an absolute right to strike absent express an absolute right to strike absent express prohibition in the federal statute (5 U.S.C. prohibition in the federal statute (5 U.S.C. § § 7311).7311).

Federal district court held that no right to Federal district court held that no right to strike unless statutory authority to do so; strike unless statutory authority to do so; traditional rule says no public employee traditional rule says no public employee strike due to “more serious impact upon the strike due to “more serious impact upon the public interest” and “Congress has an public interest” and “Congress has an obligation to ensure that the machinery of obligation to ensure that the machinery of the Federal Government continues to the Federal Government continues to function at all times without interference.”function at all times without interference.”

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Professional Air Traffic Controllers Org. v. FLRAOrg. v. FLRA

Issue was whether Federal Labor Relations Issue was whether Federal Labor Relations Authority had discretion to take disciplinary Authority had discretion to take disciplinary action against union and its member action against union and its member employees who engaged in illegal strike.employees who engaged in illegal strike.

Federal court of appeals ruled that FLRA acted Federal court of appeals ruled that FLRA acted legally based on union’s knowledge of strike legally based on union’s knowledge of strike and continued flouting of injunctions obtained and continued flouting of injunctions obtained by government against union’s strike.by government against union’s strike.

Query – was the fact that the striking Query – was the fact that the striking employees (air traffic controllers) were employees (air traffic controllers) were essential to public safety an argument against essential to public safety an argument against the union?the union?

County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees’ Ass’nAngeles County Employees’ Ass’n

Issue was whether employer could be Issue was whether employer could be awarded damages against a union which awarded damages against a union which had engaged in an allegedly illegal strike.had engaged in an allegedly illegal strike.

California Supreme Court held that public California Supreme Court held that public employee strike was not illegal unless employee strike was not illegal unless imminent threat to public health or safety.imminent threat to public health or safety.

While operation and maintenance of While operation and maintenance of sewage transport and treatment facilities sewage transport and treatment facilities and landfill disposal sites is important, and landfill disposal sites is important, would these employees be more easily would these employees be more easily replaced than, say, air traffic controllers?replaced than, say, air traffic controllers?

City of Santa Ana v. Santa Ana City of Santa Ana v. Santa Ana Police Benevolent Ass’nPolice Benevolent Ass’n

Issue was whether injunction proper to Issue was whether injunction proper to stop police officers from engaging in work stop police officers from engaging in work stoppage under guise of illness (“blue stoppage under guise of illness (“blue flu”).flu”).

California court of appeal held that California court of appeal held that injunction proper due to public safety injunction proper due to public safety threat; city was requiring officers who had threat; city was requiring officers who had already worked one shift to stay for already worked one shift to stay for another shift when numerous officers another shift when numerous officers called in sick.called in sick.