*These states and Rhode Island have laws like the Wagner Act regulating unfair labor practices.

SOURCE: Business Week, May 9, 1953, pp. 176–177. Used by special permission.

which state that such rights shall be free from interference, restraint, or coercion by employers. New York and Rhode Island also state that such provision shall not "be interpreted to prohibit employees from exercising the right to confer with their employer at any time, provided that during such conference there is no attempt by the employer, directly or indirectly, to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the provision." 46 The Taft-Hartley clause-that employees "shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities" is contained in the laws of Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Utah. Michigan provides that "it shall be lawful for employees to organize together or to form, join, or assist in labor organization, to engage in lawful concerted activities for the purpose of collective negotiation or bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, or to negotiate or bargain collectively with their employers through representatives of their own free choice." 47

"48

Employer Rights. State labor-relations laws show little evidence of providing for employers' rights. These laws seem to assume that the economic strength and bargaining power of employers is adequate. The Minnesota statute, however, does provide that "employers have the right to associate together for the purpose of collective bargaining,” and the Colorado act states that "the general right of an employer to select his own employees is recognized and shall be fully protected." Managerial prerogatives flowing out of the rights of employers to incorporate and act under the existing general law have not yet been placed in the labor-relations acts of the states.

46 New York Laws 1940, Chap. 773, Sec. 703; Rhode Island Laws 1941, Sec. 4. 47 Michigan Public Acts 1939, No. 176 (Labor Relations Act), Sec. 423.8.

48 Minnesota Laws 1939, Chap. 440, Sec. 179.10.

49 Colorado Acts 1943, Chap. 131, Sec. 2(7).

49

CHAPTER 12

State Legislation (Continued)

UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

State industrial-relations law recognizes certain unfair labor practices and forbids their use. Some of these unlawful acts are directed toward employees, and some toward employers.

Unfair Labor Practices by Employers. All the state labor-relations acts declare that certain practices by employers are unfair. As a rule, practices are unfair which conflict with the basic rights of the employees to organize and bargain collectively. Such unfair practices by employers are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Espionage. The New York act states that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer "to spy upon or keep under surveillance, whether directly, through agents, or any other person, any activities of employees or their representatives in the exercise of rights guaranteed" in the act.1 Similar provisions are found in the acts of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Minnesota.

Black-listing. The New York act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer "to prepare, maintain, distribute, or circulate any blacklist of individuals for the purpose of preventing any of such individuals from obtaining or retaining employment because of the exercise by such individuals of any of the rights guaranteed" in the act. Other state labor-relations acts with provisions against black-listing are Wisconsin, Connecticut, Colorado, Minnesota, and Rhode Island.

Domination of Unions. Almost all the state labor-relations acts make it an unfair labor practice for employers to dominate unions. A comprehensive description of such a practice is set forth in New York's act, which forbids employers: 3

To dominate or interfere with the formation, existence, or administration of any employee organization or association, agency, or plan which exists in whole

1 New York Laws 1937, Chap. 443, Sec. 704(1).

2 Ibid., Sec. 704(2).

3 Ibid., Sec. 704(3).

or in part for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning terms or conditions of employment, labor disputes, or grievances, or to contribute financial or other support to any such organization, by any means, including but not limited to the following: (a) by participating or assisting in, supervising, controlling, or dominating (1) the initiation or creation of any such employee organization or association, agency, or plan, or (2) the meeting, management, operation, elections, formulation or amendment of constitution, rules, or policies, of any such employee organization or association, agency, or plan; (b) by urging the employees to join any such employee organization or association, agency, or plan for the purpose of encouraging membership in the same; (c) by compensating any employee or individual for services performed in behalf of any such employee organization or association, agency, or plan, or by donating free services, equipment, materials, office, or meeting space or anything else of value for the use of any such employee organization or association, agency, or plan; provided that, an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or

pay.

"Yellow-dog" Contracts. The state labor-relations laws of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York declare it to be an unfair labor practice for an employer "to require an employee or one seeking employment, as a condition of employment, to join any company union or to refrain from forming, joining, or assisting a labor organization of his own choosing." * Discrimination and the Closed Shop. Almost all the state labor-relations laws make it an unfair practice for an employer to discriminate in regard to hire, terms, or other conditions of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization. If the employer and the duly selected collective-bargaining representative enter into an agreement, however, requiring as a condition of employment membership in the labor organization, such agreement may be given effect without constituting an unfair practice. However, such agreements must not be made with company unions and must conform to whatever conditions are set forth in the law. In Colorado and Wisconsin such agreements must be approved in secret ballot by a three-fourths and a twothirds vote of the membership, respectively, and are subject to termination whenever the labor organization involved has unreasonably refused to receive any employee as a member."

Refusal to Bargain Collectively. Almost all the state labor-relations laws make it an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with duly certified employee representatives. An em

4 Ibid., Sec. 704(4); Rhode Island Laws 1941, Chap. 1066, Sec. 5(4); Connecticut Laws 1951, Chap. 370, Sec. 7392.

5 Colorado Laws 1943, Chap. 131, Sec. 6(c); Wisconsin Laws 1939, Chap. 57, Sec. 111.06(1)(c).

6

ployer in Utah, Colorado, or Wisconsin is not guilty of an unfair practice in refusing to bargain collectively when two or more labor organizations claim to represent a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit, if he files a petition for certification of employee representatives, and pending such certification. Colorado and Wisconsin define "collective bargaining" as "the negotiating by an employer and a majority of his employees in a collective bargaining unit (or their representatives) concerning representation or terms and conditions of employment of such employees in a mutually genuine effort to reach an agreement with reference to the subject under negotiation." Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York declare it to be an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to discuss grievances with representatives of employees.

Discrimination for Filing Charges or Testifying. All the state labor-relations acts make it an unfair labor practice for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has signed or filed any affidavit, petition, or complaint or given any information or testimony under the act.

Interference, Restraint, and Coercion. All the state labor-relations acts except that of Minnesota provide a blanket provision making it an unfair labor practice for an employer to do any acts which interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the act. Kansas attaches to this provision the statement: "Provided, however, that no provision of this act shall be so construed as to deprive that employer of his right of 'free speech' as guaranteed by both the state and Federal constitutions." 8

Lockouts. Minnesota provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer "to institute any lockout of his employees in violation of any valid collective bargaining agreement between the employer and his employees or labor organization if the employees at the time are in good faith complying with the provisions of the agreement." Also it is unfair to violate the terms and conditions of such bargaining agreement." The Checkoff. Colorado makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer "to deduct labor organization dues or assessments from an employee's earnings, unless the employer has been presented with an individual order therefor, signed by the employee personally, and terminable at any time by the employee giving at least thirty days' written notice." Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have similar provisions, though Pennsyl

6 Colorado Laws 1943, Chap. 131, Sec. 6(d); Wisconsin Laws 1939, Chap. 57, Sec. 111.06(1)(d); and Utah Laws 1937, Chap. 55, Sec. 49-1-16(1)(d).

Colorado Laws 1943, Chap. 131, Sec. 2(5); Wisconsin Laws 1939, Chap. 57, Sec. 111.02(6).

8 Kansas Laws 1943, Chap. 191, Sec. 44-808(1).

9 Minnesota Laws 1939, Chap. 440, Sec. 179.12.