Labor Pains: Because Being in a Union can be Painful

EFCA Violates Constitutional Provisions and Supreme Court Precedent

There is more evidence today that the Supreme Court might be the last line of defense against the the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act. Harold Coxson, a management attorney with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart in Washington, D.C., argues that EFCA potentially violates the Takings Clause of the Constitution and that the legislation contradicts long-standing Supreme Court precedent:

This provision would violate the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in H.K. Porter Co. v. NLRB, 397 U.S. 99, 73 LRRM 2561 (1970), Coxson said. In that decision, the court held that NLRB did not have the power to compel an employer or union to agree to any substantive contractual provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.

Coxson also provided evidence from Canada that EFCA-like labor laws do not expedite labor dispute negotiations:

Coxson said provisions of labor law in Quebec, Canada, are similar to those in the proposed EFCA and that on average it takes 290 days from the time a first contract dispute is referred to arbitration until there is a decision. Contending that this does not address the concerns of delay in negotiating a first contract, Coxson quipped, “That is hardly time saving.”

Categories: EFACEnding Secret Ballots