answersLogoWhite

0

Labor and Employment Law
Salary and Pay Rates
Income Garnishment

Does the NLRA protect discussing wages with coworkers?


Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
Answered 2009-07-10 18:06:45

The NLRA does not specifically say discussion of wages is okay. However, courts have interpreted that discussion of wages is a concerted right and that if an employer impedes on this right the manual or employees action will illegal.

001
๐Ÿ™
0
๐Ÿคจ
0
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
0
๐Ÿ˜‚
0
User Avatar

Your Answer

Loading...

Still have questions?

Related Questions

Is it illegal to talk about wages to coworkers?

No. In fact, it's a protected covered activity under the NLRA, "National Labor Relations Act." Check out the DOL's website for additional information, http://www.nlrb.gov/workplace_rights/i_am_new_to_this_website/what_are_protected_concerted_activities.aspx


What was the purpose of the NLRA?

so that our world would be more safe!!!!!!! :)


What law was designed to protect workers from union corruption?

In the late 50's the US Senate held hearings investigating and exposing union corruption that ultimately resulted in the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act. Designed to protect workers from their unions, Landrum-Griffin, also an an amendment to the NLRA provided for the employee bill of rights.


Can employers ban collective bargaining?

No, employers can not ban collective bargaining. Collective bargaining is protected by the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act).


What was the effect of the NLRB during the Great Depression?

The Wagner Act (The National Labor Relations Act of 1935) was created to protect workers' right to unionize. The National Labor Relations Board was created to enforce the NLRA and conduct secret ballot elections to determine if employees want to be represented by a union. It also investigates unfair practices by employers and unions. The act guarantees the worker his/her right to organize and bargain collectively with employers. The Act and the NLRB protect the rights of workers.


Does the New Deal include the Wagner act?

Yes. The Wagner Act (The National Labor Relations Act of 1935) was created to protect workers' right to unionize. The National Labor Relations Board was created to enforce the NLRA and conduct secret ballot elections to determine if employees want to be represented by a union. It also investigates unfair practices by employers and unions. The act guarantees the worker his/her right to organize and bargain collectively with employers. The Act and the NLRB protect the rights of workers.


What are two things the Wagner Act accomplished during the Great Depression?

The Wagner Act (The National Labor Relations Act of 1935) was created to protect workers' right to unionize. The National Labor Relations Board was created to enforce the NLRA and conduct secret ballot elections to determine if employees want to be represented by a union. It also investigates unfair practices by employers and unions. The act guarantees the worker his/her right to organize and bargain collectively with employers. The Act and the NLRB protect the rights of workers.


What are some pro union legislative acts that grew out of the great depression?

The Wagner Act (The National Labor Relations Act of 1935) was created to protect workers' right to unionize. The National Labor Relations Board was created to enforce the NLRA and conduct secret ballot elections to determine if employees want to be represented by a union. It also investigates unfair practices by employers and unions. The act guarantees the worker his/her right to organize and bargain collectively with employers. The Act and the NLRB protect the rights of workers.


Did the Wagner act help the great depression?

The Wagner Act (The National Labor Relations Act of 1935) was created to protet workers' right to unionize. The National Labor Relations Board was created to enforce the NLRA and conduct secret ballot elections to determine if employees want to be represented by a union. It also investigates unfair practices by employers and unions. The act guarantees the worker his/her right to organize and bargain collectively with employers. The Act and the NLRB protect the rights of workers.


Before the rise of labor unions skilled and unskilled workers were what?

NovaNET: could be replaced at anytime Union workers can still be replaced at any time. Before the NLRA, us skilled and unskilled workers negotiated with their bosses INDIVIDUALLY, there was no COLLECTIVE bargaining.


What did the Wagner act do to help workers?

Nothing, it actually helped the employers. Before the act was passed employees had much more power and bargaining ability in the way that they would strike. This act allowed them to have to follow the union rules and hence set up organized strikes. This gave stability to the employer and belittled the employee. Actually, before the NLRA, employees had no power to strike and retain their jobs, and thoussands went to prison for extortion. NLRA made union legal, and allowed strikes for economic reasons (strikers permanently replaced) or for unfair labor practices (strikers temporarily replaced, then rehired)


Why the labor union lost popularity In the late20's?

Workers saw then, as they see now, that unions can do nothing to slow or stop massive layoffs and firings in a bad economy. In the 1920's, before the NLRA, courts viewed unions as illegal conspiracies.


What is the difference between Closed shop and union shop?

A closed shop is a shop in which persons are required to join a particular union as a precondition to employment and to remain union members for the duration of their employment. Among the workers' rights legalized by the NLRA was the right to enter into a "closed shop" agreement. It differs from a union shop, in which all workers, once employed, must become union members within a specified period of time as a condition of their continued employment. Closed shop agreements ensured that only union members who were bound by internal union rules, including those enforcing worker solidarity during strikes, were hired. The federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 151 et seq.) protects the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively and prohibits management from engaging in unfair labor practices that would interfere with these rights. Popularly known as the Wagner Act, the NLRA was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on July 5, 1935.


What were the agencies introduced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt?

On being elected, F. D. Roosevelt introduced dozens of federal programs. They were called Alphabet Agencies. Some of them were the CCC, CWA, FDIC, FERA, TVA, FCC,FHA, SEC, NLRA, REA, SSA, WPA, FSA, and FLSA.


Can someone be fired in Texas for living with a domestic partner that works at the same place?

Yes. Unless covered by a "just cause" provision in a union contract, any worker in Texas can be fired for any reason that is not discriminatory (or a violation of the NLRA). There is no anti-discrimination law that protects domestic partners in Texas.


Does the national labor relations act apply to public sector unions or are they under the jurisdiction of the individual states?

NLRA and the Railway Labor Act apply to private sector unions, a federal labor act applies to fed employees, and state labor laws apply to state and local government employees.


What did the NLRA do?

Made unionizing lawful nationwide. Gave most workers the statutory right to join or form unions or to refrain from doing so. Prohibited specified union conduct and employer conduct during representation campaigns and contract negotiation. Outlawed the closed shop, and legalized the union shop and agency shop and open shop.


What are some plans that are still in place today from the new deal of FDR?

The Tennessee valley act Federal Deposit Insurance act Securities and Exchange commission Federal Housing Administration Rural Electrification Administration National Labor Relations Board Social Security Act


Can you have collective bargaining and not have a union involve WI governor says he's noy trying to bust the union but wants to do away with collective bargaining?

Government workers have no RIGHT to organize or bargain. Each level of government decides whether to ALLOW bargaining and for what issues. Fed employees were forbidden to organize until 1960. WA state employees unions could not negotiate pay until 2005. State legislatures can create bargaining privileges or end them with no discussion with state employees or unions. Private employers are subject to the federal labor law - NLRA, state employees are NOT. States give or take bargaining priviledges in ways that are best for TAXPAYERS, not for employees.


Which act includes the right to collective bargaining?

Unsure of what "act" the question might be referring to. There is no federal law that guarantees the right of collective bargaining. The right to pass and enforce that type of legislation is reserved to the individual states. Some states are so-called "right-to-work" states and do not require people to belong to unions in order to have employment.- - - - - -Usually, folks refer to the National LAbor Relations ACt, which established a revocable, statutory right for some employees of private businesses to join or form unions or to refrain from doing so. NLRA exempts state and local employees over whom the Constitution denies Congress any power.There is a statutory privilege for some employees to bargain, but no "right".


What was the US Supreme Court case NLRB v. IBEW 481 US 573 1987 about?

NLRB v. IBEW, 481 US 573 (1987)NLRB v. IBEW is the short caption for National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 471 US 573 (1987), more often referred to as NLRB v. Electrical Workers (1987).Background:NLRB v. Electrical Workers (1987) is one of a series of cases challenging the interpretation of certain sections of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. The NLRA was designed to regulate the relationship and interaction between labor unions, employers and employees to prevent exploitation and abuse of power by either employers or labor unions.Further, the case addresses how much latitude the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has in constructing and enforcing rules related to this Act.The disputed Section 8 of the NLRA (specifically Section 8(b)(1)(B)) reads as follows:UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICESSection 8...(b) [Unfair labor practices by labor organization] It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents--(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157 of this title]: Provided, That this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein; or (B) an employer in the selection of his representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances;[emphasis added]Many of the unfair labor practices cases invoking 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(1)(B) involve union members contesting disciplinary action taken against them by unions for violation of the union's constitution and bylaws, including working for a non-union employer, crossing picket lines, and refraining from engaging in collective bargaining activity.The US Supreme Court granted certiorari on a number of these cases, including the one discussed here, because federal appeals courts were drawing inconsistent conclusions from the terms of the NRLA, and handing down conflicting verdicts. The High Court often presides over cases of "circuit split," where the US Court of Appeals for one Circuit issues a different ruling than that of another Circuit in a manifestly similar case.Case History:Ted Choate and Albert Schoux were IBEW union members who had taken supervisory positions with employers represented by a union cooperative, National Association of Independent Unions (NAIU), of which the IBEW was not a part.Because the IBEW didn't represent any workers of these employers (Schoux: Royal Electric Co.; Choate: Nutter Electric Co.) under a collective bargaining agreement, it disciplined the two men for violating the no-contract-no-work rule, and imposed fines of $8,200 against Schoux, and $6,000 against Choate.Schoux and Choate, in turn, filed a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), claiming the union had violated Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the NLRA due to the men's status as supervisors, outlined in Sec. 2(11) of the same Act, under what was known as the "reservoir doctrine.""Sec. 2, 11: (11) The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment."The "reservoir doctrine" was not part of the NLRA legislation, but a construct the NLRB established in 1968 to prevent unions from disciplining supervisors for the manner in which they carried out 8(b)(1)(B) (labor negotiation) duties. The NLRB reasoned that disciplinary action under those circumstances is coercive to the employer in that it can remove the employer-selected supervisor from the pool of preferred negotiators and force the business to accept a union-selected supervisor who might apply more pressure with regard to accepting union demands.The NLRB later expanded disciplinary protection to include the entire class of supervisor-members, whether or not they were currently responsible for conducting union business, under the theory that any given supervisor might be selected to perform such acts in the future. According to the NLRB, the intended effect of disciplinary action, relative to the supervisor's employment, was to force the supervisor-member to cease working for the nonsignatory employer, "thereby depriving the employer of the grievance adjustment services of his chosen representative."Neither Schoux nor Choate functioned as union representatives in their employment with Royal and Nutter, although both men carried out other supervisory duties, including personal grievance adjustment. They men believed the IBEW intended to pursue a contract with both Nutter and Royal in the future, creating justification for the 8(b)(1)(B) protection.The NLRB agreed with Schoux and Choate and ordered the union to rescind the fines levied against the two men, to expunge the disciplinary action from their records, and to post notices (probably refers to public notices that the charges were in error). An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) agreed with the order.The NLRB then sought enforcement of its order in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court, while acknowledging Schoux and Choate were supervisors under the NLRA definition, reversed the order on the grounds that the union had a right to disclipline members who violated their rules, citing the no-contract-no-work bylaw.The NLRB responded by petitioning the US Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari, which was granted (479 US 811 (1986)).The Supreme Court Ruling:Affirmed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision by a vote of 6-3Majority Opinion written by Associate Justice Brennan and joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Powell and Stevens.Concurring Opinion filed by Associate Justice ScaliaDissenting Opinion filed by Associate Justice White, and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justice O'Connor.The High Court held that a union does not violate 8(b)(1)(B) when it disciplines a supervisor-member who does not participate as the employer's representative in collective bargaining or grievance adjustment, and whose employer had not entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the union. This nullified the NLRB's "reservoir doctrine," which had protected all union supervisor-members from disciplinary action.Further, they held that the no-contract-no-work rule is not coercive of the employer because the IBEW members had the right to avoid the fine by resigning from the union, and because the employers had the right to require union members to resign as a condition of promotion or employment (except when actively undergoing collective bargaining).Citing Florida Power & Light Co. v. Electrical Workers, 417 U. S. 790 (1974), and American Broadcasting Cos. v. Writers Guild, West, Inc., 437 U. S. 411 (1978), the Court held that the NLRB interpretation of the NLRA was beyond the bounds of Congress' objective, and that the NLRA was not intended to prevent enforcement of standard union rules, or to protect the employer from adverse-effects of union discipline of union member-employees. Such effects might include making the employee more subservient to the union, and creating conflicting loyalties, neither of which constituted coercion or created actual damages to the employer.Unlike the cases of Florida Power & Light and ABC, the employer was not protected from the actions of a union with which it had no continuing relationship.Associate Justice Scalia, in his concurring opinion, agreed that the NLRB's expansion of the "reservoir doctrine" was reasonable on its face because it was a natural extension of the earlier rule. However, each expansion results in moving the rules farther from the purpose of the original statute, an action Scalia opposed.Scalia found a quote from former Chief Justice Warren Burger's remarks in United States v. 12 200-foot reels of film (1973) particularly applicable:"The seductive plausibility of single steps in a chain of evolutionary development of a legal rule is often not perceived until a third, fourth, or fifth 'logical' extension occurs. Each step, when taken, appeared a reasonable step in relation to that which preceded it, although the aggregate or end result is one that would never have been seriously considered in the first instance. This kind of gestative propensity calls for the 'line-drawing' familiar in the judicial, as in the legislative, process: 'thus far, but not beyond.'"Dissenting OpinionThe Justices writing the minority opinion concluded the NLRB was correct in claiming a union violates 8(b)(1)(B) when it disciplines a member who serves as an employer's representative, even when the employer has no continuing contract with union, because the purpose of the discipline is to force the member-supervisor to leave his or her job and deprive the employer of the chosen employee's services.They also asserted that the Supreme Court did not sit as a Super Board authorized to overrule the NLRB agency's choice of reasonable constructs of the controlling statutes, and that unions should not be given the right to prevent employers from selecting preferred employees, regardless of union membership.They conclude that the union derives benefits from placement of supervisor-members, even in non-union shops, as it gives them more leverage in future negotiations, and therefore the union must bear the burden of providing immunity from discipline to all supervisors.


How did Robert Taft get his nickname?

There was a question about whteehr TR's threats to nationalize the mines set the stage for Reagan firing air traffic controllers in the 80 s and I don't believe that would be the case. The PATCO workers were federal employees of the FAA and federal employees are not covered by the NLRA and have no lawful right to strike. When they walked off the job Reagan gave them an ultimatum which was return to work and quit breaking the law or get fired. PATCO refused (though some individuals did return to work) and the strikers were fired (and blacklisted from any federal employment until Clinton pardoned them). He was able to do this because there are also military air traffic controllers who were able to perform the work of the fired controllers which he moved into the jobs until they could get new people trained. One irony of this is PATCO had endorsed Reagan's election because he assured them he would look into the problems they were raising in their contract negotiations about safety and stress on the job and then he did nothing. He was also a former president of the Screen Actors Guild so he presumably had some knowledge of why unions take positions on candidates running for office. The ultimate irony is congress re-named Wash. Nat'l Airport Reagan Nat'l of all the things they could have named after him.


What was the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947?

The Taft-Hartley act of 1947 was effectively a set of amendments to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935. The NRLA prohibited "unfair labor practices" by employers. The amendments enacted in Taft-Hartley added a list of prohibited actions, or "unfair labor practices" on the part of unions. The Taft--Hartley Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes (strikes over who is assigned to do which jobs), wildcat strikes (strikes occurring without the approval of the union the workers belong to), solidarity strikes (political strikes), secondary boycotts (a strike for the purpose of trying to force a company not to do business with another company which may be the subject of a "primary" strike), "common situs" picketing (Picketing by a labor union of an entire construction project as a result of a grievance held against a single subcontractor on the project), closed shops (A closed shop is one where an employer may only hire union members and all workers in the shop must remain union members in order to keep their jobs. This differs from a "union shop" where an employer may hire non-union workers, but the non-union workers must then either join the union or pay some portion of the union dues in order to stay employed.), and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. The Taft-Hartley act also put several restrictions on Union Shops and states were allowed to pass "right-to-work" laws that prohibited requiring people to either join a union or pay dues as a condition of employment. The act also gave the President power to request strikebreaking injunctions (from the courts) if an impending or current strike "imperiled the national health or safety."