Foreword: Recent Developments in Labor Law: The Ninth Annual Labor Relations Institute

The papers presented in this symposium issue were initially presented at a labor institute jointly sponsored by the Atlanta Lawyers Foundation, the Federal Bar Association, the Labor Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia and the Institute of Continuing Legal Education in Georgia. This is the ninth such institute with the first having been held in 1964 for the purpose of acquainting the practicing bar with developments and trends in the field of labor law

Foreword: Recent Developments in Labor Law

This symposium issue brings together a collection of papers notable for diversity of subject matter as well as for point of view. Yet all relate to what is generally referred to as our National Labor Policy

Dean\u27s Report 1977

One mark of a quality school if the leadership it produces. The University of Georgia School of Law is unequaled as a producer of Georgia\u27s leaders. In the past seventy-nine years, eight of the state\u27s governors have been Georgia law graduates. Within this same period, 28 LL.B. degree earners from the University of Georgia have served as United States representatives, and six U.S. senators in the last 100 years were Georgia law graduates. Georgia graduates comprise a majority on both the state\u27s appeals court (seven of nine judges on the Georgia Court of Appeals) and its highest court (four of seven justices on the Georgia Supreme Court). The present governor, George D. Busbee, and the state\u27s Attorney General, Arthur K. Bolton, are Georgia Law School graduates. When these state leaders were beginning their career preparations, the Georgia Law School represented an attractive option for a legal education. This is even more the case today. With a high quality program of study at reasonable cost, the school continues to be attractive to the best young people that Georgia and the region have to offer

Union Trusteeship Provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959

With the passage of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, Congress embarked upon a policy of substantial federal regulation of internal union affairs. Prior to this enactment, the impact of law on this area had been determined largely by state courts with only a modicum of legislative guidance. In formulating the LMRDA Congress was greatly concerned with determining where to draw the line between necessary democratic safeguards and the preservation of union self-determination. This concern was particularly evident in drafting Title III which deals with union trusteeships. While Congress framed Title III from a somewhat limited informational base, two facts about the nature of trusteeships were apparent. One was the trusteeships were among the most effective devices which responsible international officers had to insure order within their organizations. The other was that in some instances trusteeships had been used as a means of consolidating the power of corrupt union officers, plundering and dissipating the resources of local unions and preventing the growth of competing political elements within the organization. How has this legislative mandate fared with nine years of administrative and judicial experience? The purpose of this article is to survey generally the evolution of the trusteeship device, the response of the common law to it, the congressional concern with trusteeship abuses, the legislative history of the corrective legislation, and finally to analyze in a more detailed review the administrative and judicial experience with Title III

Labor Relations Policy for Public Employees: A Legal Perspective

Because approximately one-sixty of the nation\u27s nonagricultural work force are public employees and because labor strife in public employment is increasing each year, the need for thoughtful examiniation of public policy in this vital area is manifest. The purpose of this article is to provide a basic legal framework to which the labor relations posture of the public employee can be related. Hopefully this can be accomplished by focusing on two separate but related areas. One concerns the oft told story of the evolution of labor-management relations policy for the private sector, while the other deals withe the law\u27s changing role in certain aspects of public employee labor relations

Some Aspects of the LMRDA Reporting Requirements

Collective bargaining became the keystone of our national labor policy with the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935. The central role of this procedure was preserved in the Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin Acts. By choosing collective bargaining as the principal instrument of labor market control, Congress sought to remove sources of industrial strife by a method which preserved private determination free from either unchecked employer power or smothering governmental control. Landrum-Griffin was supplementary legislation designed to eliminate or prevent practices which distorted and defeated the collective bargaining policy of the Labor-Management Relations Act. This statutory scheme has now been in effect for more than a decade, and the time is certainly ripe for an evaluation of the usefulness of reporting and disclosure as a control device. However, that is not the purpose of this article. All that is attempted here is a first step in that process in the form of a review of how these provisions have fared in the courts since 1959. Nevertheless, some preliminary judgments may be ventured

Some Aspects of the LMRDA Bill of Rights

Generally speaking, Title I, section 101(a), of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) guarantees to every union member: (1) equal rights and equal privileges within his union to nominate candidates for union office, to vote in elections or referendums, and to attend union meetings; (2) the right to exercise freedom of speech and assembly; (3) the right to be free from arbitrary increases in dues, initiation fees, and assessments; (4) the right to sue and to participate in administrative and legislative proceedings; and (5) the right to procedural due process in disciplinary proceedings within the union. As noble as Congress\u27 aim might have been, the Bill of Rights is nonetheless representative of the fine art of political compromise. The resulting statute is unavoidably plagued with ambiguities. Thus, the courts have been faced with the Hobson-like task of fostering the provisions of the Bill of Rights while at the same time giving credence to the avowed congressional mandate of minimum interference in internal union government. What follows is a review and analysis of the judicial development of two provisions of Title I--sections 101(a)(1) and 101(a)(3)