Law Commons^™

An Examination Of Two Aspects Of The Nlrb Representation Election: Employee Attitudes And Board Inferences, William H. Fitzgerald, D. Richard Froelke

Akron Law Review

In any event, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has, during the last 35 years, made the ballot, with its implications of order and stability, available to over 25 million American workers. Some may suppose that the bulk of union organization has already taken place and that today the election function of the NLRB is relatively unimportant. This is not the case.

The purpose of this paper is to examine, through the use of random sampling techniques, employee reactions to unions and employers, and to examine the effectiveness of NLRB policies followed in the regulation of representation elections.

The Nlrb's Restrictions On The Employer's Right Of Free Speech, D. Richard Froelke

Akron Law Review

In fiscal year 1968 more than a half million employees cast ballots in NLRB-conducted representation elections. Over the years more than twenty-five million employees have cast ballots in NLRB-supervised elections. Consequently, it seems worthwhile to review, in the light of the First Amendment, the NLRB's attempt to regulate the conduct of elections in which employees choose whether to become organized.

Selected Campaign Tactics Permitted Under The National Labor Relations Act, John D. Frisby Jr.

Akron Law Review

The thrust of this discussion is to concentrate on several tactics utilized mainly by employers (Soliciting and/or Remedying Grievances during an Election Campaign and Interrogation and Polling) and a tactic used solely by the union (Waiver of Initiation Fees). Following these discussions, a chapter will be devoted to Interference with the Board's Election Process by both parties. Finally, the issue of Misrepresentations in an election campaign will be discussed in depth as this issue is very important today in light of the ever changing approach of the Board over the past several decades.

Judicial Interference With The Nlrb: Yeshiva University And The Definition Of "Managerial", Jane Clark Casey

Akron Law Review

On February 20, 1980, the United States Supreme Court, in NLRB v. Yeshiva University, decided that the full-time faculty members of Yeshiva University are managerial employees excluded from the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act. The decision was an affirmation of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and a rejection of the position taken by the National Labor Relations Board. This paper reviews judicial interference with National Labor Relations Board decision-making generally, comments on the merits of the Yeshiva decision, and assesses the particular significance of the Court's interference with the National Labor Relations Board definition of "managerial."

Coercive Conduct And Evidentiary Hearings; Atr Wire And Cable Co. V. Nlrb, Patricia A. Mcintyre

Akron Law Review

Traditionally, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has closely adhered to this strict standard.' It has done so in compliance with one of the foremost policies of the Act - the alleviation of labor unrest by expediently certifying bargaining units. ATR Wire and Cable Co. v. NLRB, "I however, represents the current willingness of the Sixth Circuit to de-emphasize the importance of expediently certifying bargaining representatives. First, the circuit will not hesitate to remand a case with direction to the NLRB to conduct an evidentiary hearing when it determines that the Board adopted the Regional Director's recommendation to certify …