理解雇员在NLRA下的组织权利是如何受到限制的:布朗大学的案例

E. Dannin
{"title":"理解雇员在NLRA下的组织权利是如何受到限制的:布朗大学的案例","authors":"E. Dannin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1240779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) 2004 Brown University decision held that graduate student teaching and research assistants were not employees, and therefore, were not protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Deciding whether individuals are employees as defined by the NLRA is critical to labor law, as it determines whether individuals have a protected right to engage in freedom of association, self-organization, collective bargaining, and acts of mutual aid or protection. This article explains and critiques the Brown decision as a departure both from precedent as well as from the central purposes of the NLRA. It also examines how Brown University \"foreshadowed other cases in which the Board would ignore precedent and the policies underlying the NLRA.\" The piece advises readers about the importance of precision in criticizing such decisions, because \"if that criticism is not targeted to the specific wrong, it can do damage.\" It further cautions that, while criticizing specific failures to enforce NLRA rights is essential, it is important to not wholly abandon the NLRA as a vehicle for protecting such rights, stating \"We must insist that the promise of the NLRA to actively promote freedom of association in order to create equality of bargaining power between employers and employees . . . is kept.\"","PeriodicalId":413086,"journal":{"name":"Penn State Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding How Employees' Rights to Organize under the NLRA Have Been Limited: The Case of Brown University\",\"authors\":\"E. Dannin\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1240779\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) 2004 Brown University decision held that graduate student teaching and research assistants were not employees, and therefore, were not protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Deciding whether individuals are employees as defined by the NLRA is critical to labor law, as it determines whether individuals have a protected right to engage in freedom of association, self-organization, collective bargaining, and acts of mutual aid or protection. This article explains and critiques the Brown decision as a departure both from precedent as well as from the central purposes of the NLRA. It also examines how Brown University \\\"foreshadowed other cases in which the Board would ignore precedent and the policies underlying the NLRA.\\\" The piece advises readers about the importance of precision in criticizing such decisions, because \\\"if that criticism is not targeted to the specific wrong, it can do damage.\\\" It further cautions that, while criticizing specific failures to enforce NLRA rights is essential, it is important to not wholly abandon the NLRA as a vehicle for protecting such rights, stating \\\"We must insist that the promise of the NLRA to actively promote freedom of association in order to create equality of bargaining power between employers and employees . . . is kept.\\\"\",\"PeriodicalId\":413086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Penn State Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Penn State Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1240779\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Penn State Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1240779","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国家劳动关系委员会(NLRB) 2004年对布朗大学的裁决认为,研究生教学和研究助理不是雇员,因此不受《国家劳动关系法》(NLRA)的保护。根据NLRA的定义,决定个人是否属于雇员对劳动法至关重要,因为它决定了个人是否享有参与结社自由、自我组织、集体谈判以及互助或保护行为的权利。本文对布朗案的判决进行了解释和批评,认为它既背离了先例,也背离了NLRA的核心宗旨。它还研究了布朗大学如何“预示了董事会将忽视先例和NLRA基础政策的其他案例”。这篇文章建议读者在批评这些决定时要精确,因为“如果批评不是针对具体的错误,它可能会造成损害。”它进一步警告说,虽然批评执行NLRA权利的具体失败是必不可少的,但重要的是不要完全放弃NLRA作为保护这些权利的工具,声明“我们必须坚持NLRA积极促进结社自由的承诺,以便在雇主和雇员之间创造平等的议价能力……保存。”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding How Employees' Rights to Organize under the NLRA Have Been Limited: The Case of Brown University
The National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) 2004 Brown University decision held that graduate student teaching and research assistants were not employees, and therefore, were not protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Deciding whether individuals are employees as defined by the NLRA is critical to labor law, as it determines whether individuals have a protected right to engage in freedom of association, self-organization, collective bargaining, and acts of mutual aid or protection. This article explains and critiques the Brown decision as a departure both from precedent as well as from the central purposes of the NLRA. It also examines how Brown University "foreshadowed other cases in which the Board would ignore precedent and the policies underlying the NLRA." The piece advises readers about the importance of precision in criticizing such decisions, because "if that criticism is not targeted to the specific wrong, it can do damage." It further cautions that, while criticizing specific failures to enforce NLRA rights is essential, it is important to not wholly abandon the NLRA as a vehicle for protecting such rights, stating "We must insist that the promise of the NLRA to actively promote freedom of association in order to create equality of bargaining power between employers and employees . . . is kept."
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信