« AnteriorContinuar »
apprenticeship committee periodically. If they decide that there should be more training in a particular trade and something should be done in preapprenticeship training, then we set up a trade advisory committee, which is similar to the Provincial apprenticeship committee. This committee is usually composed of two labor representatives, two employer representatives, and usually an official from the apprenticeship division. They, in turn, make recommendations to the Provincial apprenticeship committee as to what they think should be done. Their recommendation is then forwarded to the Minister of Labour, who discusses it with Government. Then, a decision is made as to what should be done.
Commissioner OTERO. If I understand you correctly, I believe Canada and our thinking in New Mexico are almost identical. What we are actually saying is that we would consult with industry. You consult with industry through your management and labor representatives and your committees?
Mr. ANDERSON. Right.
CONFEREE. So in effect, you would be consulting with them; but would you also consult with them in regard to the training given?
Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, we do. We also consult with industry. We have in Nova Scotia—and I think the same applies in the other Provinces of Canada-apprenticeship training in industry. An apprenticeship counselor, from time to time, checks on the training needs of the individual industries. If they have a problem, as far as training is concerned, we attempt to set up a plan that will be suitable to their needs with financial assistance from the Provincial Government. We, in turn, are able to claim a certain amount of that contribution back, usually 50 percent, from the Federal Government.
President CATHERWOOD. Thank you for that response.
We will now hear the Report of the Industrial Relations Committee, chaired by Larry Barker of West Virginia.
But before I do, I would suggest to the various chairmen to use their judgment whether to read the complete report or to just summarize it.
The apprenticeship training report that we have just heard, while more time was given to it than average, was well justified because I know there is a great deal of interest in many of the States in apprenticeship. In fact, we do not have it scheduled for this convention other than the committee report. So I think it is fortunate that we have had such an excellent report on apprenticeship.
Report of the Industrial Relations Committee
Chairman: LAWRENCE BARKER, Commissioner, West Virginia Department
Mr. Chairman and members of the conference. Our committee has not had a chance to consult with one another; and this was a rather hurried assignment. I agreed to accept this responsibility, and we did try by mail to come up with something that would be of benefit to this audience. This is not an attempt on our part to lecture or to editorialize. However, we may seem to be parroting some of the things that have already been said today.
This committee did meet rather hurriedly to agree upon its basic intent and philosophy.
All previous reports of this committee have included legislation as enacted by the several States and Provinces, and reference to: mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, union security contracts, checkoff of union dues, regulation of picketing, jurisdictional strikes and boycotts, regulation of strikes, unfair labor practices, fair employment practices, State “Davis-Bacon” acts, and laws with misnomers such as “right to work.”
It is our belief that a large part of the aforementioned acts will be covered by the legislative committee, and the mediation and conciliation committee, and will be mentioned prominently in several other committee reports.
Therefore, we believe the following statement to be of a subject matter which points to problems facing the States in the field of industrial relations.
Where both the States and the Federal Government are legislating in the same field, conflicts of authority become inevitable.
In the years since 1940, we have seen a steady increase in State legislation to regulate industrial relations. These acts refer to minimum wages, union security agreements, injunctions, full-dress labor relation laws, and laws banning racial or religious discrimination.
In some cases the Federal Government followed State action, and vice versa.
We hear such names as fair labor standards, DavisBacon, Walsh-Healey, Taft-Hartley, national labor relations, labormanagement relations, reporting requirements, etc., etc., and we wonder who belongs to what.
Now the problem—the doctrine of Federal preemption. This is grounded on clause 2 of article VI of the Constitution, which provides :
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; * * * shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The Federal supremacy clause was construed by the Supreme Court in the early days of the Nation as rendering null and void any State law which conflicted with, impeded, or burdened an act adopted by Congress within its constitutional powers. Therefore, as stated by Chief Justice Marshall, “The law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.”
Regardless of the pros and cons, the courts have been called upon to decide numerous cases. The decisions have spelled out the doctrine of Federal Preemption, especially in the Federal Labor Relations Act, and clearly have rejected the view of concurrent jurisdiction.
These points could be debated to the nth degree but, in general:
1. Jurisdiction over strictly intrastate matters rests exclusively with the States since such matters are beyond the reach of the Federal Government's constitutional power. Where interstate commerce is involved, the Federal Government is exclusive unless the matter comes within one of the exceptions to the Federal preemption.
2. The Labor Management Relations Act expressly authorizes concurrent State regulation of union security agreements. The Federal law bars the closed shop but permits the union shop. Section 14(b), however, provides that the Federal law shall yield to a stricter State law on the subject. No special cession agreement from the National Labor Relations Board is required.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that State courts have power to implement and enforce State "right to work” laws, and that the National Labor Relations Board does not have exclusive jurisdiction in this area. But it also held that State power in this field begins only with the actual negotiation and execution of a union security agreement. Hence, picketing to obtain union security agreements remains exclusively in the Federal domain. But once an agreement is negotiated that violates State law, the State courts may step in to grant relief, such as, for example, reinstatement with backpay for an employee discharged under a union security contract that violates State law.
3. An exception permits the States to act in cases of "mass picketing, threatening of employees, obstructing streets and highways, or picketing homes.” A State still may exercise its historic powers over such traditionally local matters as public safety and order and the use of streets and highways. A State court may enjoin violence or intimidation, but it may not prohibit all picketing unless the violent activity is such as to make further peaceful picketing impossible.
4. The Court also recognized State jurisdiction over certain forms of “coercive” employee conduct, regardless of whether interstate commerce is affected. These include "sit-down" strikes and recurrent and unannounced "quickie” strikes.
5. Activity that is a “merely peripheral concern” of the TaftHartley Act, may be regulated by the States, such as a union's wrongful expulsion of a member which concerns internal union affairs.
6. In the regulation of wages, and child labor, there is concurrent jurisdiction. Whichever of the standards is higher shall prevail.
7. Certain fields still are wide open for State regulation, such as the regulation of racial and religious discrimination in employment, wage payment and wage collection, and so forth, regardless of the effect on interstate commerce, provided they must not violate other constitutional powers.
The role of government and its relationship to the individual has been changed so radically that today government is involved in almost every aspect of our lives.
Political, economic, and racial forces have developed which we have not learned to understand or control. If we ever hope to master these forces and make certain that the government will belong to the people, not the people to the government, then we must face these problems and provide for the future by learning from the experiences of the past.
We used to think of government as a single monolithic kind of center of all the power that existed. We did not think of private government in the sense of public government, yet these lines of authority are getting finer and finer. We used to rely on points of distinction, but now we realize that there is a similar kind of authority, on the one hand by corporations and labor organizations and on the other hand by various agencies of public government.
History has proven that whenever a vacuum is created relative to our responsibility failures within our respective States, the Federal Government will step in and assume that responsibility.
The vital and enduring part of the law is principles which are universal and constant, and these principles are developed by a reasoning which is tested by experience.
This is a brief report on some of our problems in the field of industrial relations, the causes and results, therefore, remaining is the question of what should be done to resolve the matter.
The law is really nothing more than common sense and common sense is a common denominator in all relationships between men. And, isn't that really the measure of the meaning of the laws.
An old axiom of law says "Where there's a wrong, there's a remedy.” The most important thing to deal with is governmental bureaucracy. It must be avoided-laws cannot be passed to accomplish everything.
We feel that our IAGLO must come up with guidelines for meaningful legislation; we must avoid bureaucracy; do only what is necessary and what makes good sense; reason together; and strive for a perfect partnership between Federal and State Governments, with private government as a strong ally.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE
LAWRENCE BARKER, West Virginia, Chairman
THOMAS ROUMELL, Michigan [Accepted.]
President CATHERWOOD. Thank you, “Judge” Barker. [Laughter.] That was a very appropriate report in a field that has not, by this association, to date been very precisely defined. As indicated, past reports have covered a very wide area.
We will now hear the Report of the International Committee, under the chairmanship of Commissioner Ricciuti of Connecticut.
Report of the International Committee
Chairman: RENATO RICCIUTI, Commissioner, Connecticut Labor Department
The Report of the International Committee this year, while it deals to a large extent with activities of the International Labor Organization, is of special interest in that State and Provincial labor officials were members of the United States and Canadian delegations attending the three meetings, discussed below. Among the delegation members participating in the work of those meetings were:
Canada–Mr. C. R. McCord, Director of the Annuities Branch, Department of Labour, Ottawa; Mr. D. T. Cochrane, Industrial Relations Officer, Federal Department of Labour, Halifax; the Honorable John R. Nicholson, Minister of Labour, Ottawa; and Mr. R. E. Anderson, Deputy Minister of Labour, Nova Scotia.
United States—Mr. Renato E. Ricciuti, Commissioner, State Labor Department, Connecticut; Mrs. Florence G. Clifton, Chief, Department of Industrial Relations, California; Mr. Norman 0. Nilsen, Commissioner of Labor, Oregon.