Oversight Hearing, Developments in Labor Law Affecting the Construction Industry: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, First Session, Hearing Held in Washington, D.C., on March 8, 1983
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Education and Labor. Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984 - 117 pages
Other editions - View all
administrative law judge AFL-CIO agree antitrust bargaining relationship bargaining unit building trades BURTON Chairman circuit court collective bargaining agreement competitive Congress intended CONGRESS LIBRARY CONGRESS THE LIBRARY Connell construction industry decertification determination DIEGO LAW REVIEW double-breasted operations dustry election procedures employee free choice employment enforce ERLENBORN filed GEORGINE going Higdon Contracting hiring hall issue labor law Labor Relations Act Labor Relations Board legislative history LIBRARY OF CONGRESS majority status majority support McDowell ment National Labor Relations NLRA NLRB Dec NLRB's nonunion open shop contractors Operating Engineers organization Peter Kiewit Peter Kiewit Sons picketing ployees prehire agreement problem Representation SAN DIEGO represented ROUKEMA SAN DIEGO LAW section 8(f single employer South Prairie STIGLITZ struction industry supra note Supreme Court Taft-Hartley Taft-Hartley Act Thank unfair labor practice union agreement Union of Operating Union Representation SAN unit question wages Wagner Act workers
Page 54 - shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as
Page 87 - |N)othing in this subsection shall apply to an agreement between a labor organization and an employer in the construction industry relating to the contracting or subcontracting of work to be done at the site of construction.
Page 67 - of such employment, or (3) such agreement requires the employer to notify such labor organization of opportunities for employment with such employer, or gives such labor organization an opportunity to refer qualified applicants for such employment, or (4) such agreement specifies minimum training.
Page 69 - |A|ny agreement which would be invalid, but for clause (1) of this subsection, shall not be a bar to a petition filed pursuant to section 9(c) or 9(e).
Page 112 - Board's position is rooted in the generally prevailing statutory policy that a union should not purport to act as the collective bargaining agent for all unit employees, and may not be recognized as such, unless it is the voice of the majority of the employees in the unit. Section 7 of the Act,
Page 25 - Rep. No. 187, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. at 27 (1959). "A substantial majority of the skilled employees in this industry constitute a pool of such help centered around their appropriate craft union. If an employer relies upon this pool . . . there is no doubt . . . that the union will, in fact, represent a majority of the employees eventually hired.
Page 52 - in order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by (the) Act.
Page 113 - the Act, assuring employees the right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing or to refrain from such activity than to grant exclusive bargaining status to an agency selected by a minority of its employees, thereby impressing that agent upon the nonconsenting majority. This is true even though the employer and the union believe in good faith, but mistakenly, that the union has obtained majority support.
Page 113 - has obtained majority support. To countenance such an excuse would place in permissibly careless employer and union hands the power to completely frustrate employee realization of the premise of the Act - that its prohibitions will go far to assure freedom of choice and majority rule in employee selection of representatives.