RIGHT‐TO‐WORK LAWS AND COMPULSORY UNION MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES
| Date | 01 July 1976 |
| Published date | 01 July 1976 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1976.tb00050.x |
| Author | Ronald L. Miller |
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
Vol.
XIV
No.
2
RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS AND COMPULSORY UNION
MEMBERSHIP
IN
THE UNITED STATES
RONALD
L.
MILLER*
THE battle over right-to-work laws-the compulsory unionism issue- has been
raging off and on for the past twenty-nine years. For most workers and citizens
the whole matter is clouded in claims and counter-claims which produce more
heat than light. While moral issues are involved (as in most human activities), at
'.s
core the debate over compulsory union membership involves
a
clash of
xonomic interests. In its symbolism and substance, the controversy reveals the
significance of union security issues in American collective bargaining.
INITIAL PUBLIC POLICY
Before examining
the
pros and cons of the right-to-work controversy,
a
brief
background review is appropriate. In 1935 Congress passed the nation's basic
labour law, the National Labor Relations Act. The Act created the National
Labor Relations Board (N.L.R.B.) to interpret and apply the legislation, and es-
tablished statutory provisions authorising the N.L.R.B. to conduct
a
representa-
tion election
to determine
if
employees in
a
designated
bargaining unit
(defined by
grouping together jobs or job classifications) want to be represented by the
petitioning union. If a majority of the votes in the bargaining unit election sup-
ports the union, the union is certified by the N.L.R.B. as the
exclusive represen-
tative
for the unit. Exclusive representation carries with it specific obligations and
benefits for the union, the employer and bargaining unit employees.
(1) The employer can only negotiate with the certified union concerning the
terms and conditions of employment for employees in the unit. For ex-
ample: the bargaining unit may have
a
hundred employees; union
X
has
been certified as the representative; however, twenty-five of the hundred
employees are members of union Y; management is obliged under law to
negotiate with union
X
for all hundred employees and cannot negotiate
with union Y for the twenty-five employees.
(2)
The employer cannot bargain with individual employees in the unit con-
cerning their terms and conditions of employment. However, the union and
employer can agree to certain minimum terms and conditions of employ-
ment and then permit bargaining between individual employees and
management above the minimum. This often happens with highly skilled
workers, such as tool and die makers.
(3)
The contract negotiated between
union
and management applies to all
bargaining unit employees, whether or not the employee is a member of
that
union.
In other words, the union must under law fairly and consistently
represent all employees in the unit. Therefore, the union could not negotiate
lesser benefits for non-union members in the unit, or provide
union
members higher pay rates than non-members for the same type of work.
Members and non-members must have equal access to and representation
during grievance hearings.
*
Associate
Professor
of
Management, University
of
Illinois.
186
To continue reading
Request your trial