NCJ Number
100030
Journal
Labor Law Journal Volume: 36 Issue: 3 Dated: (March 1985) Pages: 145-172
Date Published
1985
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This article examines the basic legal framework for collective bargaining in the transportation industry and the relative merit of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in a deregulated environment.
Abstract
Using British labor law as a paradigm, the different conceptual origins and philosophies of the two are analyzed, with a focus on the differences in the degree of Government intervention entailed and the use of dispute settlement procedures. The RLA was intended to provide a loose legal framework within which disputes could be settled voluntarily. Under the RLA, disputes which cannot be mediated are subjected to arbitration or factfinding and recommended settlement. In contrast, the NLRA was almost exclusively concerned with the quasi-judicial selection of bargaining representatives, but was later amended to require advance notice of a desire to modify or terminate a collective bargaining agreement. During this period, economic action is prohibited and mediation services may be proffered. Thus, the acts have tended to converge over time. The current control of the timing of economic action and the selection of bargaining units under the two acts then is discussed, with a focus on changes needed in legal structure to provide sufficient flexibility in a deregulated industry. The general issue of a consolidated transportation labor law then is considered. It is concluded that less Government intervention may be more conducive to the development of collective bargaining in an increasingly competitive and integrated industry. 206 footnotes.