Restoring the Policy and Meaning of the National Labor Relations Act: Countering Taft-Hartley Revisionism and Distortion of the NLRB Appointment Process

Source: Charles J. Morris, Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, Vol. 33 No. 1, Spring 2012

From the abstract:
This article challenges and refutes the conventional wisdom that the Taft-Hartley Act changed the basic policy of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act). It identifies two interrelated phenomena as factors primarily responsible for the longstanding inability of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) to adequately protect employees in their right to unionize and engage in collective bargaining. One phenomenon is the longstanding revisionism that distorted perception of the Act’s policy. The other is the repetitive abuse of the Board’s appointment process. The article also demonstrates that the NLRB’s shortcomings have resulted primarily from the agency’s failure to vigorously enforce existing law and to utilize innovative measures already available under the Act rather than from the Act’s textual insufficiencies….

Leave a Reply