2. 外语
  3. Supreme Court justices seemed reluctant on Wednesday to disallow a type of agreement between employers and unions that has becom

Supreme Court justices seemed reluctant on Wednesday to disallow a type of agreement between employers and unions that has becom

admin2015-10-21  25
问题     Supreme Court justices seemed reluctant on Wednesday to disallow a type of agreement between employers and unions that has become increasingly important to the labor movement as it tries to grow its ranks. The case involves neutrality agreements, which a union lawyer told the court are commonly used in organizing hotel and casino workers. Under such an agreement, an employer might remain neutral during the organizing campaign and even grant the union access to company grounds or lists of employees. In return, the union might agree to give up the right to strike or throw its support to a matter important to the company.
    "Many employers and unions find agreements such as this useful to avoid conflict during organizing campaigns," lawyer Richard G. McCracken told the court at Wednesday’s arguments. He represents Unite Here, a union seeking to represent employees of a Hollywood, Fla. , greyhound track and casino. "They are efficient. They avoid the hard feelings that come in many contested organizing campaigns and thereby create a good environment for collective bargaining," McCracken said.
    But some business organizations and right-to-work groups say businesses often are bullied into entering into such agreements. The case before the court resulted from a lawsuit brought by Martin Mulhall, who worked for the Florida Company Mardi Gras Gaming. While other federal appeals courts have upheld such agreements, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit said the neutrality agreement at issue violated a section of the Labor Management Relations Act. It forbids an employer to "pay, lend, or deliver any money or other thing of value" to a labor union seeking to organize the company’s workers. In this case, the casino allowed the union access to its employees and agreed to election rules allowing employees to vote by checking a card in front of others rather than by secret ballot. The union made concessions as well and also agreed to spend $100,000 to support a 2006 referendum to allow slot machines at the casino.
    The labor act bans employer payments to unions to discourage bribes and corruption. McCracken argued that the "thing of value" language wasn’t meant to cover what are routine matters of collective bargaining. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said access to company grounds would seem like a thing of value. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he did not see how the employer’s agreement to a "card-check" election rather than secret ballot could not be seen as a benefit. "The union organizer comes up to you and says, ’Well, here’s a card. You can check I want to join the union, or two, I don’t want a union. Which will it be?’ And there’s a bunch of your fellow workers gathered around as you fill out the card. " Roberts said. Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben, arguing for the government on behalf of Unite Here, said the court had decided in previous cases that card-check elections are legitimate.
    William L. Messenger, a lawyer for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation representing Mulhall, received tougher questioning. Messenger said it should be clear that the casino had given the union a thing of value. " If the employer gives this assistance and the union gives something in return—for example, here the $100,000 political campaign and agreement not to strike—then it becomes a payment, because the consideration shows payment," he said.
    But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 11th Circuit’s decision was not that neutrality agreements necessarily violated the law. It wanted a lower court to discern whether the specific agreement was corrupt. Justice Elena Kagan led Messenger through a series of accommodations she said were accepted practice in labor negotiations that he would find objectionable in a neutrality agreement. Kagan asked, did he think "the National Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from providing access to their premises, from granting a union a list of employees, or from declaring itself neutral as to a union election"? When he answered, "Yes, with caveats," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked Messenger if he acknowledged that his answer "is contrary to years of settled practices and understandings. "
    Still, both liberal and conservative justices questioned the union’s pledge to spend $100,000 on the slot machine referendum. "That $100,000 is troubling to me because I think what the circuit was saying is if the $100,000 bought the peaceful recognition provisions, then that’s corrupt, and that is outside the exemptions that the law provides," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. McCracken said the money was not given to Mardi Gras, but spent in an effort to make sure the company was successful and there would be more jobs. " It was actually the union’s own exercise of its speech and petition rights as it campaigned for the passage of the initiative that would allow the company to get into business in the first place as a casino," he said.
It can be learnt from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. that______.
选项 A、the legitimacy of card-check elections should be reconsidered
B、the card-check election is actually beneficial to the union
C、he doesn’t see the influence of the way of election to the union
D、the employer can gain some benefit from the card-check election
答案B
解析 细节题。文中第四段第四句说，“首席大法官小约翰·G·罗伯茨也说，他怎么也看不出来，雇主同意不采用无记名的方式进行投票，而是采用‘勾选卡片’的方式进行选举，这怎么就不算是受益呢?”由字面意思可知，法官罗伯茨认为“勾选卡片”的选举方式会使某方受益，再结合第三段最后两句提到的赌场允许工会进行非匿名投票，而工会同意赌场购置老虎机的决议，可以确定受益方为工会，因此[B]为正确答案。该句中没有提到“勾选卡片”选举方式的合法性问题，故排除[A]；该句说法官罗伯茨认为该选举方式对工会有益，而不是他没有看到这种选举方式的影响，故排除[C]；根据第三段最后一句可知，雇主的受益表现在工会同意他的决议，而不是这种不记名的选举方式，故排除[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/NFKO777K
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)