Section 8 (a) (2) of the NLRA and the Dunlop Commission's Report

Section 8 (a) (2) of the NLRA and the Dunlop Commission's Report

著者 HAGIWARA Susumu

出版者 Institute of Comparative Economic Studies, Hosei University

journal or

publication title

Journal of International Economic Studies

volume 14

page range 83‑88

year 2000‑03

URL http://doi.org/10.15002/00002209

JoumaIo｢1,にmatiomalEconomicStudics（2000)，No.14,83-88

C2000ThclnstituteofComparativcEconomicStudies,HoseiUIuiverwBity

Section8(a)(2)ｏｆｔｈｅＮＬＲＡａｎｄ ｔｈｅＤｕｎｌｏｐＣｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ，ｓＲｅｐｏｒｔ

ＳｕｓｕｍｕＨａｇｉｗａｒａ

Ｐｍ/ｈ５ＳｏＺＦｔｚｍノリがEbo"0,地ＨＤ"jUiziひ`応jα乃秒oJJjbq〃

1．ＴｈｅＣｒｉｓｉｓｏｆＡｍｅｒｉｃａｎｌｎｄｕｓｔｒｉａｌＤｅ]mocracy

Ｔｈｉｓｐａｐｅｒｓｅｔｓｏｕｔｓｏｍｅｏｆｔｈｅａｕｔｈor，simpressionsoftheDunlopCommission，s FinalReport（1994)．TheDunlopCommissionis,ｏｆcourse,theCommissiononthe FutureofWorker-ManagementRelationsestablisｈｅｄｉｎｌ９９３ｂｙｔｈｅＵ・Ssecretaries ofLaborandCommerce・TheDunlopCommissionpresenteditsFinalReporttothe

twosecretariesinDecemberofl994・

FiveyearshaveelapsedsincethepublicationoftheFinalReport,duringwhich timetherehavenotbeenanymajorchangesinUSlaborlegislationorindustrial relations,exceptfbrcontinuedunionmembershipdecline・Uniondensityinthepri- vatesectorhasdeclinedcontinuouslysincel955，atrendwhichhasheldmrecent years,theratefHnallydroppingbelow10％ｔｏ9.6％ｉｎ1998．Theauthorisconcemed thatthedemiｓｅｏｆｔｈｅｕｎｉｏｎｉｎＡｍｅｒｉｃａｍａｙｎｏｔｂｅｆｎｒｏｆｆ

ＡｆｔｅｒｉｔｓｄｅｆｅａｔｉｎＷＷＩＩ,Japanｗａｓ“remade,，bytheOccupatioｎＡｒｍｙｉｎｔｈｅ ｌａｔｔｅｒｈａｌｆｏｆｔｈｅｌ９４0,s、Oneofthemostimportantrefbrmswaslaborrefbrm,fash‐

ionedalongNewDeallinesandcarriedoutbyNewDealers、ManyAmericaninsti- tutionsweretransplantedtoJapanfromtheUS・andwerewelcomedenthusiastically byJapaneseworkers、AmongthesewereunfnirIaborpractices,ｔｈｅＮＬＲＢ,theright tostrike,jointproductioncommittees,ａｎｄｓｏｏｎ・TheAmericancollectivebargain‐

ingsystemwasverypopular,evenamongleftistunionleaderswhoseideologieswere stronglyopposedtobusinessunionismJapan,sSpringWageOfTbnsivewasmodeleｄ ｏｎａＵＡＷ,sbargainingtactic,andinmanyotherinstancesaswell,Americanlabor unionswerementorsfbrunionsinpost-warJapanButｗｉｔｈtheuniondensityde- cline，theAmericancoUectivebargainingsystemitselfhasgraduallydeteriorated，

causingconcernsamongJapaneseunionleadersaboutthepessimisticoutlookfbr

Americanlaborunions・

Thedeclineinuniondensityintheprivatesectorisexpectedtocontinuefrom the9６％levelofl998toaround5､0％inthenearfUture、Ifthishappens,whatwill becomeofthe``workplacedemocracy,,thatAmericaonceboastedoP7Isindustrial societyintheUS・retrogradingtothemanorialsyste、？Oristhereapossibilityof unionrevival？Isitpossiblefbrthepartiesconceｍｅｄｔｏｗｏｒｋｏｕｔanaltemativeway ofcooperating？ＷｈａｔｃａｎｔｈｅＵ・Ｓｇｏｖｅｍｍｅｎｔｄｏｔｏｐｒｅｖｅｎｔｔｈｅｄｅａｔｈｏfindustrial democracy？Willthegovernment,alongwithemployers,ｗｉｎｋａｔｔｈｅｄｅａｔｈｏｆｕｎｉｏｎｓ

８３

Scction8(a)(2)ofthcNLRAandthcDunlopCommission0sReport

ｉｎｔｈｅＵＳ.，ｏｒｗｉｌｌｉｔｔａｋｅｂｏｌｄｍｅａｓｕｒｅｓｔｏｃｈａｎｇｅＵ.S・laborlaw？

Soonafterhisinauguration,PresidentClintonappointedRobertReichassecre-

taryoftheDepartmentofLabor，ＩｔｗａｓＲｅｉｃｈｗｈｏ,togetherwiththeSecretaryof

Commerce,setuptheDunlopCommissiontoexploresolutionsfbrtheUS･industrial

relationscrisis・ＴｈｉｓｐａｐｅｒａｒｇｕｅｓｉｎｓｕｐｐｏｒｔｏｆｔｈｅＦinalReportoftheDunlop

Commissio､．

lLSection8(a)(2)andEmpIoyeeParticipation

ＷｈａｔｗａｓｔｈｅｆｂｃｕｓｏｆｔｈｅＤｕｎｌｏｐCommission,swork？ＴｈｅCommissionwasre- quiredtoreportonthefbllowingthreequestions：

LWhat（ifany)newmethodsorinstitutionsshouldbeencouraged,orrequired,to enhanceworkplaceproductivitythroughlabor-managementcooperationandem-

ployeeparticipation？

2．What（ifany）changesshouldbemadeinthepresentlegalfTameworkandprac- ticesofcollectivebargainingtoenhancecooperativebehavior,improveproductiv‐

ity,andreduceconflictanddelay？

3．Ｗｈａｔ（ifanything）shouldbedonetoincreasetheextenttowhichworkplace problemsaredirectlyresolvedbythepartiesthemselves，ratherthanthrough

recoursetostateandfbderalcourtsandgovernmentregulatorybodies？

AlthoughtheDunlopCommissiontackledthesevariousproblemswithaviewto reconstructingAmericanindustriesthroughfilrtherunion-managementcooperation，

theCommissionsquarelyaddressedtheissueofemployeeparticipationonthework-

placeleveLAcentralquestionfbrtheDunlopCommissionseeｍｅｄｔｏｂｅｈｏｗｔｏ

ｓｐｒｅａｄｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｅｐａｒｔicipationplanstoworkplacesthroughoutAmericanindustry・It isthiselnployeeparticipationproblemthatlwilldealwithinthispaper，

IntheUnitedStates,employeerepresentationplans(citedhereafterasERPs)or employeeparticipationplans（citedhereafterasEPPs）werehistoricallyabigissue

fbrbothlaborpractitionersandmdustrialrelationsprofessionalsatleastuntilthe

l940s・ERPsorshopcommitteeshaveflourishedinsuchmajorcorporationsaｓ ＡＴ＆Ｔ,ＤｕＰｏｎｔａｎｄＧＭ，MilitantunionistsbitterlyattacｋｅｄＥＲＰｓａｓ‘`company-

dominatedshamunions”aimedatprecludingbona-fideunions．Howevernational

unionsaffniatedｗｉｔｈｔｈｅＡＦＬｃｏｕｌｄｎｏｔｏｒｇａｎｉｚｅｔｈｅｎewlydevelopedindustries，

anduniondensitydeclinedrapidlyｉｎｔｈｅｌ９２０ｓ、Ｉｎｌ９３３ａｎｄｌ９３５，undertheNa- tionalIndustrialRecoveryAdministration，theorganizationandrapidspreadof

companyunionswasencouragedasameansto“cartelize,,Ｕ､S・industries、

1,1935,ｔｈｅＵＳ,CongressenactedtheNLRAunderthesponsorshipofSenator Wagner・WagnerregardedtheERPsasmajorobstaclestothegrowthofunionsand ofcollectivebargainingThus，ＥＲＰｓａｎｄＥＰＰｓｃａｍｅｔｏｂefbrbiddenunderthe

NLRA,ascompany-dominatedunions・Section8(a)（２）oftheActprovidedasfbl-

1ows：

Section8(a)(2)：Itshallbeanunfairlaborpracticeｆｂｒａｎｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｒｔｏ ｄｏｍｉｎａｔｅｏｒｉｎｔｅｒferewiththefbnnationoradministrationofanylabor

organizationorcontributefmancialorothersuppｏｒｔｔｏｉｔ・

TogetherwithSection2(5)oftheNLRA,Section8(a)(2)isacruciallyimpor‐

tantprovisionfbrtheprotectionoftheworkers,righttoorganizeSection2(5)

8４

SusumuHagiwara

definesalabororganizationas“anyorganizationofanykind,oranyagencyorem- ployeerepresentationcommitteeorplaninwhichemployeesparticipateandwhich existsfbrthepurpose，ｉｎｗｈｏｌｅｏｒｉｎｐａｒｔ，ofdealingwithemployersconceming grievances,labordisputes,Wages,ｒａｔｅｓｏｆｐａｙ,hourｓｏfemployment,orconditionsof work.,，Section2(5)andSection8(a)(2)ｃａｎｂｅｃａｌｌｅｄ“companyunion,,banning

provls10ns・

WiththeenactmentoftheNLRA,most“companyunions,'disbandedanddisap‐

pearedbutafewweretransfbrmedintogenuinelaborunionsorbona-fideemployee participationgroups・Theproblemofemployeerepresentationinthenon-union sectordidnotemergeasanimportantissuemAmericanlaborlegislationuntilthe

l960,sbecauseofthesocialacceptanceofSection8(a)(2)anditsenfbrcementbythe

NLRB

Butafterthel980-82recession,thesocialclimateinAmericagreatlychanged・

Firstly，thetraditionaladversarialrelationsintheAmericanindustrialrelations systemcameundersharpcriticism,evenbyliberalscholars、Americanproductswere loosingtheircompetitiveedgeover``MadeinGermany,,ｏｒ“MadeinJapan,,prod‐

ucts,andthemajorreasonfbrthisdecliningcompetitivenesswasseentolieinthe lackofcooperativeindustrialrelationsintheAmericanworkplace、Secondly,indus- trialrelationsprofessionalsinAmericadrasticallyalteredtheirappraisalsofGerman

workCouncilsandJapaneseenterpriseunions，Theybeganlookingcarefilllyatthe GermanandJapanesemodelsfbrcluesintransfbrmingtheAmericanindustrialrela- tionssystemintoamorecooperativeandparticipatoryone、Thirdly,largecorpora- tionsintroducednewhumanresourcesmanagementmethodssuchasqualitycircles andemployeeinvolvement（EI）plan,ｓｏｏｎ、Theintentofthesenewdeviceswasto enhanceproductivitythroughemployeeparticipationindecision-makingprocesses，

andtheyhaveincludedvariousfbrmsofworkplaceorganizationsfOrparticipation Accordmgtoworkplacesurveysconductedinthelatel980sandearlyl990s，ｓoｍｅ 40％ofAmericanworkplaceshadsuchorganizationa

Thespreadofemployeeparticipationplans(EPPs)ｉｎ、on-unionizedcompanies wasanintriguingbutdifficultsubjectfbrtheNLRBItfbrmulatedguidingprinci‐

plestodrawadistinctionbetweenlawfUlemployeeorganizationsandunlawfUlones、

Broadlyspeaking,ｔｈｅＮＬＲＢｈａｓｒｅｇａｒｄｅｄｔｈｅｍａｓｕｎｌａｗｆiJl,astheyinvolve“dealing with,,employersontheissueofemploymentconditions,ａｎｄｙｅｔａｒｅｕｎｄｅｒｔｈｅｄｏｍｉ－

ｎａｔｉｏｎｏfemployers・Butthephrases“dealmgwith，’ａｎｄ“domination，,areboth vague,andtherefbretheNLRBhashadtotreattheseorganizationsonacase-by-case approachlnl992，itissuedanorderontheElectromationcase，ａｎｄａｌｓｏｏｎｔｈｅ ＤｕＰｏｎｔｃａｓｅｉｎｌ９９３，Inbothcasestheemployeeparticipatoryorganizationswere regardedasunlawfUlunderSection2(5)ｏｒＳｅｃｔｉｏｎ８(a)(2)．Accordingtothese rulings,ｔｈｅＵＳ・industrialrelationssystemappearedtobefacingadoublecrisis,ｔｈａｔ is，arepresentationalcrisisandalegalcrisis、Ｉｎｔｈｅｅａｒｌｙｌ９９０ｓｔｈｅＵｎｉｔｅｄＳｔａｔｅｓ facedtwopuzzlesintermsofindustrialrelations、Ｔｈｅｆｉｒｓｔｗａｓｈｏｗｔｏｓｔｏｐｔｈｅ ｗｅａｋｅｎｉngofcollectivebargaining,andthesecondhowtoenhanceemployeepartici- pationinworkplaces・BothdealtwithSection8(a)(2)，andmoreoverthesolutions contradictedoneanother、Ｏｎｏｎｅｈａｎｄ,ｔｈｅＮＬＲＡｎｅｅｄｅｄｔｏｂｅａｍｅｎｄｅｄｉｎｆａｖｏr ofunionaButontheotherhand,therewasaneedtorelaxSection8(a)(2)inorder topromoteemployeeparticipationinworkplaces，TheDunlopCommissionissued thefbuowingrecommendationsassolutionstothiscomplexlegislativeproblem．

8５

Section8(a)(2)oftheNLRAandthcDul1IopCommission,sReporl

DunlopCommission,srecommendationonSection8(a）

(1)FacilitatetheGrowthofEmployeeInvolvement

TheCommissionrecommendsthatnon-unionemployeeparticipationprograms

shouldnotbeunlawfUlsimplybecausetheyinvolvediscussionoftermsandcondi‐

tionsofworkorcompensationwhereｓｕchdiscussionisincidentaltothebroadpur‐

posesoftheseprograms・

Webelievethatprogramsofthetypesrefbrredtoabove,whichareprolifbrating

intheUS・today,donotviolatethebasicpurposesofSection8(a)(2)．Therefbrewe recommendthatCongressclarifySection8(a)(2)ａｎｄtheNLRBinterpretitinsuch

awaythatemployeeparticipationprogramsoperatmginthisfashionarelegaL

(2)ContinuetoBanCompanyUnions

ThelawshouldcontinuetoprohibitcompaniesfiPomsettingupcompanydomi‐

natedlabororganizations・ItshouldbeanunfairlaborpracticｅｕｎｄｅｒＮＬＲＡＳｅｃｔｉｏｎ

８(a)(1)fbranemployertoestablishanewparticipationprogramortouseorma‐

nipulateanexistingonewiththepurposeofhustratingemployeeefYbrtstoobtain independentrepresentation・

TherecommendationsoftheDunlopCommissionareaccommodationalin nature、Theypointtotheneedfbrthelawto“easethecreationofemployeeinvolve‐

mentprogramswithouthanningemployeeheedomtounionize,’andconcludethat

"thisbalanceisessential,,．

111.ＣｏｎｍｍｅｎｔｓｏｎｔｈｅＤｕｎｌｏｐＣｏｍｍｉｓｓｉｏｎ，ｓＲｅｐｏｒｔ

TheDunlopCommission，sReportrecommendedlegalizationofnon-unionemployee participationprograms,whileretainingonlyessentialcontentsofSection8(a)（２）as befbreThisisbecausetheDunlopCommissionevaluatedhighlybothemployee

involvementprogramandcollectivebargaining・ＴｈｅCommissionwasnevernegative

tocollectivebargainingsystemandlaborunionbasedupon“notorious,,adversa‐

rialismTherefbretheCommission,sReportsupportedlaborunionsandrecom‐

mendedseverallegaland/orinstitutionalrefbrmstoconsolidateunionrights・These containedimportantclauseson,fbrinstance,promptcertiflcationofelections,timely injunctiverelieffbrdiscriminatoryactions,resolutionoffirstcontractdisputesand employeeaccesstoemployerandunionviewsonindependentrepresentationThese recommendationscanhelptoslｏｗｄｏｗｎｕｎｉｏｎｄｅｃｌｉｎｅｂｙｌｉｍitingemployers，union bustingactivities・Butemployerscanbeexpectedtostronglyresistsuchlaborlaw

refbrm・

Inl995CongresstriedtorefbrmtheexistingU・Slaborlawsaccordingtothe DunlopCommission，srecommendations・ＯｎＳｅｐｔｅｍｂｅｒｌ８，1995,itreportedoutthe

"TeamworkfbrEmployeesandManagersAct，，Ｈ・Ｒ７４３（l04thCo､9.,1stSess.)．

"TheTeamAct,，wouldhaveaddedthefbllowingprovisotoSection8(a)(2)ｔｏ enhance,,legitimateemployeeinvolvementprograms.,，

ProvidedfUrther,Ｔｈａｔｉｔｓｈａｌｌｎｏｔｃｏｎｓｔｉｔｕｔｅｏｒｂｅｅｖidenceofanunftlir laborpracticeunderthisparagraphfbranemployertoestablish，assist，

maintain,ｏｒparticipateinanyorganizationorentiｔｙｏｆａｎｙｋｉｎｄ,ｉｎｗｈｉｃｈ

8６

SuSumuHagiwara

employeesparticipatetoaddressmattersofmutualinterest，including,ｂｕｔ

ｎｏｔｌｉｍｉｔｅｄｔｏ，issuesofquality，productivity，efTiciency，andsafetyand health,andwhichdoesnothave,claim,orseekauthoritytobetheexclusive bargainingrepresentativeoftheemployeesortonegotiateorenterinto collectivebargainingagreemeｎｔｓｗｉｔｈｔｈｅｅｍｐｌｏｙｅｒｏｒｔｏａｍｅｎｄｅｘｉsting collectivebargainmgagreementsbetweentheemployerandanylaboror‐

ganization,exceptthatinacaseinwhichalaborOrganizationistherepre- sentativeofsuchemployeesasprovidedinSection9(a),thisprovisoshall notapply・

Ｔｈｅ“ＴｅａｍAct,,ｐａｓｓｅｄｉｎｔｈｅＨｏｕｓｅｉｎｌ９９５ａｎｄｐａｓｓｅｄａｇａｉｎｉｎｂｏｔｈＨｏｕｓｅｓ ｉｎｌ９９６ｔｏｌ９９７、ButPresidentClintonvetoedtheActinl997，A1thoughPresidem Clinton，ｓｖｅｔｏｏｆｔｈｅＴｅａｍＡｃｔｍａｙｈａｍｐｅｒｔｈｅｄiffUsionofemployeeparticipation programsintheUnitedStates,itseemsjustifiabletotheauthorbecausetheTeamAct adoptedonlythepro-employerargumentsintheDunlopCommission，sReportand neglectedtherecommendationstostrengthenunionpower、

Inmodernindustrialsocietybothcollectivebargainingandemployeeparticipa- tionarenecessary・NowadaystheUnitedStatesofAmericafacesaseriouscrisisin theindustrialrelationsfield，Ｕｎｉｏｎｓａｒｅｄｙｍｇａｎｄｔｈｅｓｐｒｅａｄｏｆｅｍｐloyeeparticipa- tionprogramsisrestrictedbybothlaborlawandconventionalemploymentpractices、

ＨｏｗｔｈｅＵ.S・wiUextractitselffromthisstalemateisafascinatingtopicfbrthe author,whohaslongstudiedUS､industrialrelationsandlaborhistory・Itseemsto theauthorthattheDunlopCommission，sReportisfairlyequitable,andoffbrssolu- tionsfbrtherepresentationprobleminAmerica・TheAmericanpeopleshouldheed theCommission，ｓＲｅｐｏｒｔａｎｄｔｒｙｔｏｒｅｆｂｒｍｔｈｅｅxistinglaborlawsalongthelinesit hasputfbrth．

References

ArchibaldCoxetal.,（1996),LQ6orLawJCb⑬Csα"aMmerjmsblZthedition・TheFoundation Press,Inc・

BureanofLaborStatistics,（1937),Ｕ､S､DepartmentofLabor,ｄｉＱｍａｅｒｊｓｉｊｃｓｑ/Cbmpα'1Ｊ Ｕ刀⑩“BulletinNo.634,Washington,，.Ｃ､：GovernmentPrintingOffice・

Brody,David,（1994),“Section8(a)(2)andtheOriginsoftheWagnerAct,,,inRonald Sieber,SheldonFriedman,RudolpbA､OswaldandJosephUehlein，eds.,ResmrilZg肋ｅ Ｐｍｍノヱq/・AmerjcmzLa6o7Lawblthaca,Ｎ､Ｙ・ILRPress、

DunlopCommission,（1994),Reporra"dRecolw7Te"datio"３．DepartmentofLabor(Decem- ber)．

E､1.DuPont,（1993),３１１Ｎ.L・ＲＢ８９３，

Electromation,（1992),３０９Ｎ.L・ＲＢ９９０,ｃｉｔｅｄｉｎＣｏｘｅｔａＬＬａｂｏｒＬａｗ・

Estreicher,Samuel,（1994),“EmployeelnvolvementandtheCompanyUnionProhibition：

TheCasefbraPartialRepealorSection8(a)(2)oftheNLRA,”jVewYbrkU"iveぶり ＬａｗＲｅｖｉｅｗｂ６９（ApriD、

Kaufman,BruceE・andMoTrisM､K1einer,（1993),EmpmyUeRep花s"ratio";ＡＩ疋沈aZiyesq"ａ

ｍｍＪＲｅｓｂＩＲＲＡ・

Kaufh]an,BruceE,（1997),"CompanyUnions:ShamOrganizationsorVictimsoftheNew Deal?,，Pmceedi"邸qﾉｵﾉieFbr〃－１V、ﾋﾟﾉｉｄ""zJQﾉMeeti"ｇｑ／ｵﾉjeDZd"s"､ﾉＲｅﾉmjo"SRC‐

seu花hdssocjatioPz．

，（1199),“Non-UnionEmployeeRepresentationinthePre-WagnerActYears:A Reassessment,"JO"７Ｗα/q/LaborRes巴α'℃/ＬＶｏＬＸＸ,Ｎｕｍｂｅｒ１，（Winter)．

8７

Section8(a)(2)ortheNLRAandthcDunIopCommission,sRcport

LeRoy,MichaelH,（1993),"EmployerDominationofLaborOrganizationandtheElectro‐

mationCase:ＡnEmpiricaIPublicPolicyAnalysis,,,GeolgeﾘﾘﾉtJMli"g[o〃ＬａｗＲｅｖｉｅｗｂ６１

（August)．

，（1996)，“CanTEAMWork？“ImplicationsofanElectromationandDuPont ComplianceAnalysis,''１Vｏｒ花Ｄ、?ＴｅＬａｗＲｅＷｅｗｂ７１

，（1997),"DealingwithEmployeelnvolvementinNonunionWorkplaces:Empiri‐

Ｃａ]ResearchlmplicationsfbrtheTEAMActandElectromation,''１Vｏｒ”ＤｑｍｅＬａｗ ＲｅｐｉｅＷ,７２（November)．

，（1999)，“AreEmployersConstrainedintheUseofEmployeeParticipation GroupsbySection8(a)(2)oftheNationalLaborRelationsAct?,，JOmwa/q/Ｌｑｂｏｌ

Ｒ““”A,ＶｏＬＸＸ,Ｎｕｍｂｅｒｌ（Winter)．

NationalLaborRelationsBoard,（1985),LGgMJtjPeHjsro〃q/・jhejVmm"αﾉLaborReAzrjb"ｓ

ＡｃＬＪ”ユＶｏＬ１～ＶＯＬ２．

Arnold,EPerl，（1993)，“EmployeelnvoIvementGroups:ＴｈｅＯｕｔｃｒｙｏｖｅｒｔｈｅＮＬＲＢ,ｓ

ElectromationDecision,”Ｌａ６ｏｒＬｑｗＪｂ"ｍｃＪ４４４．

8８