Labor Management Relations Act of 1947
|Long title||An Act to amend the National Labor Relations Act, to provide additional facilities for the mediation of labor disputes affecting commerce, to equalize legal responsibilities of labor organizations and employers, and for other purposes.|
|Enacted by||the 80th United States Congress|
|U.S.C. sections amended||401–531|
|Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act|
|Part of a series on|
The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 29 U.S.C. § 401-531 better known as the Taft–Hartley Act, (80 H.R. 3020, Pub.L. 80–101, 61 Stat. 136, enacted June 23, 1947) is a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions. The act, still effective, was sponsored by Senator Robert A. Taft and Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr., and became law by overcoming U.S. President Harry S. Truman's veto on June 23, 1947; labor leaders called it the "slave-labor bill" while President Truman argued that it was a "dangerous intrusion on free speech", and that it would "conflict with important principles of our democratic society". Nevertheless, Truman would subsequently use it twelve times during his presidency. The Taft–Hartley Act amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA; informally the Wagner Act), which Congress passed in 1935. The principal author of the Taft–Hartley Act was J. Mack Swigert of the Cincinnati law firm Taft, Stettinius & Hollister.
- 1 Background
- 2 Effects of the act
- 3 Opposition to the Act
- 4 See also
- 5 Notes
- 6 References
- 7 External links
Taft–Hartley was one of more than 250 union-related bills pending in both houses of Congress in 1947. After World War II, 25 percent of the workforce was unionized (around 14.8 million workers had union contracts, 10 million of them being union security agreements), and with the war now over, their promise not to strike so as not to impede the war effort had expired.
As a response to the rising union movement and Cold War hostilities, the bill could be seen as a response by business to the post–World War II labor upsurge of 1946. During the year after V-J Day, more than five million American workers were involved in strikes, which lasted on average four times longer than those during the war.
The Taft–Hartley Act was seen as a means of demobilizing the labor movement by imposing limits on labor's ability to strike and by prohibiting radicals from their leadership. The law was promoted by large business lobbies including the National Association of Manufacturers.
Effects of the act
[T]o promote the full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees and employers in their relations affecting commerce, to provide orderly and peaceful procedures for preventing the interference by either with the legitimate rights of the other, to protect the rights of individual employees in their relations with labor organizations whose activities affect commerce, to define and proscribe practices on the part of labor and management which affect commerce and are inimical to the general welfare, and to protect the rights of the public in connection with labor disputes affecting commerce.
The amendments enacted in Taft–Hartley added a list of prohibited actions, or unfair labor practices, on the part of unions to the NLRA, which had previously only prohibited unfair labor practices committed by employers. The Taft–Hartley Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass right-to-work laws that outlawed closed union shops. Furthermore, the executive branch of the federal government could obtain legal strikebreaking injunctions if an impending or current strike imperiled the national health or safety.
In jurisdictional strikes, outlawed by Taft–Hartley, a union strikes in order to assign particular work to the employees it represents. Secondary boycotts and common situs picketing, also outlawed by the act, are actions in which unions picket, strike, or refuse to handle the goods of a business with which they have no primary dispute but which is associated with a targeted business. A later statute, the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, passed in 1959, tightened these restrictions on secondary boycotts still further.
According to First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams, the Act "was the first law barring unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or [in] opposition to federal candidates".
The outlawed closed shops were contractual agreements that required an employer to hire only labor union members. Union shops, still permitted, require new recruits to join the union within a certain amount of time. The National Labor Relations Board and the courts have added other restrictions on the power of unions to enforce union security clauses and have required them to make extensive financial disclosures to all members as part of their duty of fair representation. On the other hand, Congress repealed the provisions requiring a vote by workers to authorize a union shop a few years after the passage of the Act when it became apparent that workers were approving them in virtually every case.
Union security clauses
The amendments also authorized individual states to outlaw union security clauses (such as the union shop) entirely in their jurisdictions by passing right-to-work laws. A right-to-work law, under Section 14B of Taft–Hartley, prevents unions from negotiating contracts or legally binding documents requiring companies to fire workers who refuse to join the union. Currently all of the states in the Deep South and a number of states in the Midwest, Great Plains, and Rocky Mountains regions have right-to-work laws (with five states—Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Oklahoma—going one step further and enshrining right-to-work laws in their states' constitutions).
The amendments required unions and employers to give 60 days' notice to each other and to certain state and federal mediation bodies before they may undertake strikes or other forms of economic action in pursuit of a new collective bargaining agreement; it did not, on the other hand, impose any "cooling-off period" after a contract expired. The Act also authorized the President to intervene in strikes or potential strikes that create a national emergency, a reaction to the national coal miners' strikes called by the United Mine Workers of America in the 1940s. Presidents have used that power less and less frequently in each succeeding decade. President George W. Bush invoked the law in connection with the employer lockout of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union during negotiations with West Coast shipping and stevedoring companies in 2001.
The Act also prohibited federal employees from striking.
The amendments required union leaders to file affidavits with the United States Department of Labor declaring that they were not supporters of the Communist Party and had no relationship with any organization seeking the "overthrow of the United States government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional means" as a condition to participating in NLRB proceedings. Just over a year after Taft–Hartley passed, 81,000 union officers from nearly 120 unions had filed the required affidavits. In 1965, The Supreme Court held that this provision was an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Treatment of supervisors
The amendments expressly excluded supervisors from coverage under the act, and allowed employers to terminate supervisors engaging in union activities or those not supporting the employer's stance. The amendments maintained coverage under the act for professional employees, but provided for special procedures before they may be included in the same bargaining unit as non-professional employees.
Right of employer to oppose unions
The Act revised the Wagner Act's free speech policy to allow employers to deliver anti-union messages in the workplace. These changes confirmed an earlier Supreme Court ruling that employers have a constitutional right to express their opposition to unions, so long as they did not threaten employees with reprisals for their union activities nor offer any incentives to employees as an alternative to unionizing. The amendments also gave employers the right to file a petition asking the Board to determine if a union represents a majority of its employees, and allow employees to petition either to decertify their union, or to invalidate the union security provisions of any existing collective bargaining agreement.
National Labor Relations Board
The amendments gave the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board discretionary power to seek injunctions against either employers or unions that violated the Act. The law made pursuit of such injunctions mandatory, rather than discretionary, in the case of secondary boycotts by unions. The amendments also established the General Counsel’s autonomy within the administrative framework of the NLRB. Congress also gave employers the right to sue unions for damages caused by a secondary boycott, but gave the General Counsel exclusive power to seek injunctive relief against such activities.
The act provided for federal court jurisdiction to enforce collective bargaining agreements. Although Congress passed this section to empower federal courts to hold unions liable in damages for strikes violating a no-strike clause, this part of the act has instead served as the springboard for creation of a "federal common law" of collective bargaining agreements, which favored arbitration over litigation or strikes as the preferred means of resolving labor disputes.
The Congress that passed the Taft–Hartley Amendments considered repealing the Norris-LaGuardia Act to the extent necessary to permit courts to issue injunctions against strikes violating a no-strike clause, but chose not to do so. The Supreme Court nonetheless held several decades later that the act implicitly gave the courts the power to enjoin such strikes over subjects that would be subject to final and binding arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement.
Finally, the act imposed a number of procedural and substantive standards that unions and employers must meet before they may use employer funds to provide pensions and other employee benefit to unionized employees. Congress has since passed more extensive protections for workers and employee benefit plans as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").
Opposition to the Act
After spending several days considering how to respond to the bill, Truman vetoed Taft-Hartley with a strong message to Congress. Truman had expressed no opinion on the bill prior to his veto message. The committees considering the bill had requested suggestions from the Truman administration, but did not receive any. With the administration taking no stand on the bill, it passed both houses with strong bipartisan support. A clear majority of House Democrats voted for the bill, while Democrats in the Senate split evenly, 21-21.
Despite Truman’s all-out effort to stop the veto override, Congress overrode his veto with considerable Democratic support, including 106 out of 177 Democrats in the House, and 20 out of 42 Democrats in the Senate.
Union leaders in the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) vigorously campaigned for Truman in the 1948 election based upon a (never fulfilled) promise to repeal Taft–Hartley. Truman won, but a union-backed effort in Ohio to defeat Taft in 1950 failed in what one author described as "a shattering demonstration of labor's political weaknesses". Organized labor nearly succeeded in pushing Congress to amend the law to increase the protections for strikers and targets of employer retaliation during the Carter and Clinton administrations, but failed on both occasions because of Republican opposition and lukewarm support for these changes from the Democratic President in office at the time.
- Labor unions in the United States
- Norris–La Guardia Act
- Wagner Act
- Jurisdictional strike
- Secondary boycott
- Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (1990) 5 to 2 on §185 of LMRA 1947, holding that a plaintiff is entitled to trial by jury if the trade union denies representation
- "National Affairs: Barrel No. 2". Time. June 23, 1947. Retrieved May 24, 2010.
- Debating 'Citizens United', The Nation (2011-01-13)
- Harry S. Truman: Veto of the Taft-Hartley Labor Bill
- Preis, Art (1964). Labor's Giant Step: The First Twenty Years of the CIO. Pathfinder Press. ISBN 0-87348-263-8.
- Peale, Cliff (September 4, 2000). "Local lawyer had role in labor law". Cincinnati Enquirer. Retrieved June 6, 2012.
- Cochran, Bert (1979). Labor and Communism: The Conflict That Shaped American Unions. Princeton University Press.
- Smith, Sharon (2006). Subterranean Fire: A History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States. Haymarket Books. ISBN 1-931859-23-X.
- Anna McCarthy, The Citizen Machine: Governing by Television in 1950s America, New York: The New Press, 2010, p. 54. ISBN 978-1-59558-498-4.
- Fleischli, George R. (May–June 1968). "DUTY TO BARGAIN UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 10988". Air Force Law Review.
- Nicholson, Phillip (2004). Labor's Story in the United States. Temple University Press. ISBN 1592132391.
- Gruenberg, Mark (June 11, 2007). "Taft-Hartley Signed 60 Years Ago". Political Affairs Magazine. Retrieved 2012-06-06.
- Richard S. Conley, “Triumphs, tribulations, and turnip day sessions in the 80th Congress,” in Congress and Harry S. Truman: a Conflicted Legacy, Donald A. Ritchie (ed.) (Truman State University Press, 2011) 29-30.
- “Truman-Taft stands – point by point”, CQ Almanac, 1951.
- Benjamin C. Waterhouise, Lobbying in America, (Princeton University Press, 2013) 53.
- Davis, Mike (2000). Prisoners of the American Dream: Politics and Economy in the History of the US Working Class. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 1-85984-248-8.
- Lubell, Samuel (1956). The Future of American Politics (2nd ed.). Anchor Press. p. 202.
- Cockburn, Alexander. "How Many Democrats Voted for Taft-Hartley?" Counterpunch. September 6, 2004.
- Faragher, J.M.; Buhle, M.J.; Czitrom, D.; and Armitage, S.H. Out of Many: A History of the American People. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
- McCann, Irving G. Why the Taft-Hartley Law? New York: Committee for Constitutional Government, 1950.
- Millis, Harry A. and Brown, Emily Clark. From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley: A Study of National Labor Policy and Labor Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950.
- Text of the Taft-Hartley Act
- A film clip "Longines Chronoscope with Fred A Hartley" is available for free download at the Internet Archive