Violation of US Constitution in Collective Bargaining

The plaintiff’s defence would include that the West Virginia Law violates the clause of Equal Protection, Due Process and Freedom of Association under the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America (“14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)”, 2018). It infringes the clause relating to Contracts in the US Constitution. Additionally, the law violates the Section 1 of Article XI of the West Virginia Constitution (“West Virginia Constitution”, 2018). Along with these legal violations, it is needed to be understood that Collective Bargaining deals with issues of unfair labor practises, majority rule and duty to bargain, certification, voluntary mediation, impasse, strike and lockouts, etcetera. These are critical issues of the hospital organizations that need to be dealt with experts within the sector and not consumer representatives from organized labor sector, mall business sector, elderly people and people with their income below national median income. This vast parity of societal or class difference between the people would create a stir in the meetings of the association. There would be constant disagreement between the member that would not lead to a healthy and peaceful collective bargaining (American Hospital Association v. Hansbarger).

From the point of view of a Judge, the West Virginia Law would be helpful for the better administration of the hospital and for the public good as by this way there would be transparency in the transactions. In addition to, the non-profit hospitals require consumer representations in terms of the common people as it is crucial in planning, growth and development (American Hospital Association v. Hansbarger).

The Universidad states that NLRB holds no jurisdiction over it as it is a religiously affiliated institution and makes a governmental body like NLRB hold control over a religious institution would result in violation of the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago). It is evident that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), being a US government agency with the responsibility to enforce US labor law pertaining to unfair labor practices and collective bargaining would interfere into the religious matters of the Universidad of Bayamon. However, it is to be comprehended that as per the composition of NLRB, it has a control over any institution whose predominant mission is to serve students a secular higher education, even though such institution bears religious traits and carry out religious rites and functions (“NLRB”, 2018).

Undoubtedly, NLRB’s jurisdiction satisfies the requirement of an institution being secular. However, to determine the speculation that NLRB would indulge into extreme entanglement between religious affairs of an institute and government, certain related factors needs to be looked into (“NLRB”, 2018). Factors like: the purpose and character of the Universidad central de Bayamon, the nature of activities issued by the government pertaining to religious educational institutes and the eventual relationship between the organization and the government (Universidad Central De Bayamon v. National Labor Relations Board). In addition to, it is to be remembered that the issues regarding unfair labor practices and collective bargaining arising in the organization would generally be of secular nature, devoid of religious interference, therefore requiring the assistance of a secular medium to mediate such issues. Therefore, NLRB’s involvement into the institution’s affair would be considered just and rational (NLRB v. Salvation Army of Massachusetts Dorchester Day Care Center).

Secularism and Collective Bargaining

From the view point of The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the closeness or relation between the Directors and employee for they are related, are clouded, biased and often one-sided, while decision making should be impartial and transparent. According to the regulations of the Board, it not would be exceeding its authority even if it excludes close relatives of the Directors from Collective Bargaining units. However, it should look into the matter whether such relatives enjoy some special privilege relating to their job. The decision of the board to exclude family members is not inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act’s policy or fundamental structure (Greene & O’Brien, 2015). The Board may also point out its policy to exclude close relatives of the management and to be wholly neutral is directly proportional to each other. It needs to focus as well that the employment of such family members speaks for the benefit of the business and owners, and not for the benefit of the employees’ (NLRB v. Action Automotive, Inc.).

The company may argue that it has its discretion to employ anyone as it wishes to, which is just and fair on its part as a corporate entity. The company may also point out that the family members did not have any special job role which would put them in a different level from others so that they can be denied their basic voting rights as a employee (NLRB v. Action Automotive, Inc.).

The main factor which the NLRB should consider for severing the glassblowers from the rest of the production team is that the glassblowers carry out a completely different task than the rest of the workforce. This makes them stand out in the crowd, along with the kind of issues they face are completely different from the rest. It must also be considered that their pay scale is much higher than the production workers as well, which paves the way for a differentiation among them. Therefore, it is only just, fair and reasonable to sever the glassblowers from the production workers’ unit and treat their issues differently as both of these units require different attention and different approach to their problems (Cooper & Mishel, 2015). It will be wise for NLRB to allow them to form a Glass Artisans Guild, which would facilitate easy administration, identification and redressal of issues of the glassblowers’ as well as the production workers as there will be less chance of issues being suppressed, overlooked or delayed (Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Labor Board).

References:

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress). (2018). Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html

American Hospital Association v. Hansbarger, 600 F. Supp. 465 (N.D.W. Va. 1984)

Cooper, D., & Mishel, L. (2015). The erosion of collective bargaining has widened the gap between productivity and pay. Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC. www. epi. org/publication/collective-bargainings-erosion-expanded-the-productivity-pay-gap/. Accessed, 10.

Greene, S., & O’Brien, C. N. (2015). The NLRB v. The Courts: Showdown over the Right to Collective Action in Workplace Disputes. American Business Law Journal, 52(1), 75-130.

NLRB v. Action Automotive, Inc., (1985) No. 83-1416

NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490

NLRB v. Salvation Army of Massachusetts Dorchester Day Care Center, 763 F.2d 1, 8 & n. 9 (1st Cir. 1985)

NLRB. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.nlrb.gov/

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Labor Board, 313 U.S. 146 (1941)

Universidad Central De Bayamon v. National Labor Relations Board and union De Profesores Universitarios, Intervenor, 793 F.2d 383 (1st Cir. 1986)

West Virginia Constitution. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.wvlegislature.gov/WVCODE/WV_CON.cfm#articleXI