Since the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was constituted, it has been accused on numerous occasions of pro-management and pro-union activities and possible bias when enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. The result has been a massive scrutiny and investigation by the labor management and the Senate. There has been extensive and incriminating evidence of the controversial conduct of the NLRB from testimonies that have been collected from the spokesmen of organized labor which have been submitted to congressional subcommittees and also through the statements that have been made labor representatives at numerous conventions (DeLorme & Wood 1978). My opinion has been that the Board has been biased and partial in executing their mandate regarding the interpretation of unfair labor practices and it has not represented its members adequately due to political influence and prejudice in the voting patterns of individual members of the Board.
Therefore, this paper seeks to analyze the bias and unfair execution of the voting system by the Board on more than 1250 cases which involved unfair and partial labor practices and decisions that were presented in the NLRB’s report from 1955 to 1975. The unfair discharge of the Board’s duties included allegations of assaults by pro-union representatives and failing to uphold and execute effective, fair and unbiased representation to the authorities. During this time, a majority of NLRB members were appointed by the Nixon administration, and this was perceived that the law was being refined into some mechanism whose cutting edge would utterly jeopardize the ability of unions to do an efficient job to the members that represent.
The Board was accused of being influenced by politics in discharging its duties and responsibilities and the partisan decision it makes, and these allegations have been derived from the numerous cases that have been handled by NLRB. There has not been an explicit and systematic way of analyzing the voting criteria that is employed by the Board when it comes to voting in important and crucial matters. The report was confined to the biased conclusions and decisions that were made by the Board in unfair labor practice cases because they form the majority of cases that are decided by the Board, and also they represent an area where the Board has made considerable discretion in interpreting the act.
The annual report for the financial years from 1955 to 1975 were looked at and investigated to determine any discrepancies in the voting of the members in unfair labor practices. After scrutiny and investigations, the report indicated that the practices were pro-management when it comes to making decisions about important unfair labor practices. If the board upheld a management complaint or failed to address conclusively and reasonably an unfair labor practice issue, then it was considered to be pro-union or pro-management in dispensing its duties and mandate. However, at some instances, some members voted in the interest of the management because of the support and backing that they receive from the board when it comes to crucial matters that relate to labor practices. The board should display transparency when enforcing the National Labor Relations Act without any bias to any particular party.
References
DeLorme, C. & Wood, N. (1978). NLRB Voting on Important Unfair Labor Practices Decisions: 1955-1975. American Business Law Journal 16(2), 223 -229.
