Search results

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

EU social policy is perhaps the most controversial aspect of European integration yet, despite all the political clashes on the matter, concepts like “social Europe” or “social dimension” remain ill‐defined and imprecise terms. Intends to outline and clarify in detail the debate about whether or not the European Union should have competence with regard to labour market affairs. A key message is that social policy has been controversial because it has become embroiled in the debate about the future political direction of the EU. In particular, three contrasting political models –symbiotic integration, integrative federalism and neo‐liberalism – have been put forward as organizing principles for the EU and each has a coherent view of what form social policy should take at the European level. It is the clash between these three models that has caused EU social policy to be so contestable and intractable.

Whatever debates may have taken place in the past in the courts and elsewhere on the status of trade unions, current legislation provides that a “… trade union … is not a body corporate …” and “…shall not be treated as if it were a body corporate…” For practical reasons however, a trade union is, inter alia, “… capable of making contracts …” which includes the entering into a collective agreement.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) creates rights for covered employees, defines conduct that violates those rights, and deems that conduct an unfair labor practice. But while given broad remedial powers under the Act, the Board's options were curtailed by the Supreme Court's limit on the use of deterrence as an express remedial justification. The Board was left with a strongly make-whole, i.e., ex-post, focus to undo the consequences of a violation.

Put differently, the current NLRA remedies reflect a pay-or-play philosophy. The goal is restoration after the fact, using ex-post remedies to give parties the benefit or status quo that they expected. An actor willing to pay may use a cost–benefit analysis and strategically choose to violate the Act, accepting the make-whole remedies later. But the Act created ex-ante statutory rights, not agreed-upon contractual terms. By statutory enactment, employees are given something of value deemed worthy of protection. Assigning value to compliance with the law in the first instance not only prevents sometimes irreparable harm but also reaffirms the inherent value of the right itself.

The impact of the Board's limited remedies is therefore a broad value-driven one. Without ex-ante deterrence, the available ex-post make-whole remedial options make a normative statement about individuals' rights under the Act: those rights may not be inherently worth enough to incentivize legal compliance. The make-whole focus can imply that financial compensation for the portion of harm that can be calculated and “undoing” some nonfinancial effects is sufficient. There is little drive to deter infringement before the fact. By examining the remedial philosophy behind contrasting approaches in the common law of torts and contract, this Article asserts that the current remedial strictures and framework undermine both the Act and the worth of its rights in the eyes of the public and the employees who hold them.

It will be recalled that the last monograph treated the significance of the collective agreement in society. If solely a function in society, (though having a legal basis), were to be attributed to the collective agreement, this would mean that no rights or obligations whatsoever would be created between the parties to it. This is not so in practice. It is of course a fact that no legally enforceable rights and obligations normally accrue, and as already indicated, those are moral ones and are only enforceable in honour, i.e. a gentleman's agreement. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that the collective agreement has no juridical significance. Even agreements which are binding in honour only, as for example the kind of agreement found in Balfour v. Balfour, have a known juridical nature. Furthermore, though the collective agreement is only binding in honour, its incorporation into the individual contract of employment makes its terms legally enforceable even though recourse to the courts is seldom had. As a source of rights and obligations of considerable importance the collective agreement must therefore have some juridical significance and cannot remain entirely in the realms of society.

Since 1979, the Conservative government in the UK has introduced wide‐ranging and detailed regulations for the conduct of union internal affairs; a number of other Western industrialized countries have not done so (or have not done so to the same extent) but have continued their tradition of relying on unions themselves to establish democratic procedures. Alternative views of the role of the state in industrial relations underlie these differences. A second, linked article, appearing in Employee Relations (Vol. 15 No. 4), examines state approaches to union autonomy in the context of attitudes towards other controls on union activities and attempts to explain the successive shifts in British policy in the UK since the 1960s.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of employee representation systems in the USA from the Ludlow Massacre of 1914 up to the events in 2015 at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The study begins with the strike at the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation which led to the deaths of several women and children. In the aftermath of Ludlow, John D. Rockefeller, Jr, visited the mines in 1915 and persuaded workers that an internal employee representation plan would serve their interests better than an outside trade union. Rockefeller’s influence shaped American industrial relations until the passage of the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act in 1935, when company unions were outlawed. The ongoing decline of unions and collective bargaining has prompted academic speculation that a return to internal workplace committees might lead to a rejuvenated labor movement in the USA.

The study uses both archival materials and secondary sources to construct a narrative of one important element of industrial relations. It explains Wagner’s ban on company unions as a component of his economic agenda. Company unions provided a voice for a firm’s workers, but Wagner believed they were powerless to redistribute corporate wealth. The decline of American unions is so profound that they no longer serve an economic role in our capitalist system, but workers’ voice in the workplace remains an important consideration.

The key finding of this paper is that employee representation plans are not merely an industrial relations anachronism but continue to be relevant to today’s workplace. The paper compares an influential representation plan developed in 1914 by John D. Rockefeller, Jr, to current schemes of representation and argues that labor law should be modified to permit modern versions of the older “company unions”.

Works councils play a crucial role in European labor relations, and they could do so in America if labor laws were modified to permit it. An exposition of the deep historical context of representation helps to legitimate the concept. Future research into specific cases, including an international perspective, would add to an understanding of the benefits and costs of representation.

The originality of this paper is its combination of a historical event and a contemporary case study that brings together a theme present in managerial history for over a century. By emphasizing the aims of Rockefeller, Jr. in 1914 and the objectives of the Volkswagen Company in 2014 in establishing a participatory workplace, we gain a long-term framework through which to evaluate a particular managerial technique. The paper also suggests ways to bring our labor laws into conformance with the idea of employee representation.

Through a survey of 200 employees working in five of the thirty establishments analysed in previous research about the microeconomic effects of reducing the working time (Cahier 25), the consequences on employees of such a reduction can be assessed; and relevant attitudes and aspirations better known.

This paper proposes a new theoretical framework to explain enterprise unionism and conducts the first systematic comparative study of union structure in nine Asian countries. Our framework emphasizes political dynamics and the role of the state in labor relations and argues that the initial period of the collective bargaining era constituted a critical juncture (state labor policy) that occurred in distinctive ways in different countries and that these differences played a central role in shaping the different union structures in the following decades. The nine countries are mainly divided into three groups, depending on the type of state labor policy: enforcement of enterprise unionism; centralization/laissez-faire (non-enterprise unionism); and dual unionism/gradual transition (middle-ground). Governmental data were used for the study. A clear correspondence between state labor policy and union structure in each of these groups was found. We believe that our framework significantly enhances our understanding of the Asian cases. Future research should explore the validity of the proposed framework through comparative studies of Latin American cases where enterprise unions have also been observed.

Investigates what is happening in North America with regard to labour relations law. Examines, first, collective labour relations and labour law and, second, focuses on the legal regulation of the individual relationship, also known as employment law. Goes on to cover these two separate, but intertwined, entities in depth and as they are interpreted in both Canada and the USA. Concludes that labour law is changing and moving toward contractualization and proceduralization. Wonders whether labour law will be able to continue to play the role of protecting wage earners for which it was originally developed.