Labour Relations Conflict in the Workplace, Essay Example

Conflict and Law

With regard to labour-management relations, the federal government has generally adopted a compulsory unionism policy. This approach is prescribed for most private-sector employers through the [1]National Labour Relations Act, though there are other federal laws that involve labour relations and allow for compulsory collective bargaining. The manner in which federal labour laws interact with state laws is important to understanding the role of right-to-work laws. The “supremacy clause” of the U.S. Constitution means that federal laws supersede any state law that might conflict with them. What this essentially means is that any federal law regulating a compulsory unionism policy to protect collective bargaining issues with the worker and company are ‘not discretionary powers’ rather are express powers granted by legislation through the National Labour Relations Act.

“A fundamental principle of the Constitution is that Congress has the power to pre-empt state law. Even without an express provision for pre-emption, we have found that state law must yield to a congressional Act in at least two circumstances. “When Congress intends federal law to ‘occupy the field,’ state law in that area is pre-empted. And even if Congress has not occupied the field, state law is naturally pre-empted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute.” [2](Hastings, P., 2009). Pre-emption refers to the displacement of a lower jurisdiction’s laws when they conflict with those of a higher jurisdiction. If a law’s validity is challenged under state law, federal law must take precedent in order to keep the full purposes and objectives of Congress. This was distinguished in the infamous case of [3]Transport Workers Union of America v Keating where in November 2001, several labour organizations and a pipeline company sued then Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma seeking a declaration that the right to work law was unconstitutional. “The trial court held that the right to work amendment did not apply to employees covered by the [4]Railway Labour Act, the [5]Civil Service Reform Act, or the [6]Postal Reorganization Act; nor did it have any application to federal enclaves, such as military bases. Thus, held the trial court, no pre-emption issues existed as to employees covered by these federal acts because the Oklahoma right to work amendment itself contemplated that those employees were excluded from the amendment’s ambit.” [7](“Precedent, Inc.”, 2009).

Federal Express Corporation

Former employee, US Federal Express has remained under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labour Act since its founding in 1971. RLA jurisdiction gives Federal Express Corporation the best opportunity to deliver reliable, uninterrupted service to customers. It is that superior service that has allowed them to grow in spite of the best efforts of a larger, more profitable competitor – UPS. UPS has a current lobbying campaign in which they are  working hand-in-hand with the Teamsters Union is another attempt by UPS to gain a competitive advantage that they have been unable to gain through their service performance. “The RLA status of FedEx Express has been continually reaffirmed by courts and federal agencies. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 1991 that FedEx is exactly the kind of integrated system that Congress intended to be covered by the Railway Labour Act – the Supreme Court declined to even hear the case because the ruling was so clear. In [8]Federal Express Corporation vs. California Public Utilities Commission the court wrote:

‘Federal Express is exactly the kind of an expedited all-cargo service that Congress specified and the kind of integrated transportation system that was federally desired. Because it is an integrated system, it is a hybrid, an air carrier employing trucks. Those trucks do not destroy its status as an air carrier. They are an essential part of the all-cargo air service that Federal Express innovatively developed to meet the demands of an increasingly interlinked nation.’” [9](“Railway Labour Act”, 2009).

Under the RLA, groups that wish to unionize must do so across nationwide classes of employees rather than through state-wide local only. The RLA also requires mandatory government-led mediation of contract disputes supervised by the National Mediation Board before a union can strike or an employer can replace employees or impose contract terms. This is very often accomplished through contract ‘arbitration clauses’. The purpose is to facilitate a speedy resolution to conflicts without the expensive and time consuming need for litigation. Often courts require mediation before litigation can commence. The power of a contracted arbitration clause gives the employer bargaining tools and shows the desire to justly and fairly settle all disputes with efficient and effective resolution.  This part of the RLA helps minimize the chances of crippling strikes that would shut down large portions of the economy.

UPS, competitor of Federal Express has been under the NLRA since that law was passed in 1935 because they have always been classified as a ground shipping service company. “UPS does not handle their air shipments in a separate and distinct network that ties directly into their air operation, as FedEx Express does.”(“Railway Labour Act”, 2009). The main difference between the RLA and National Railway Labour Act (NRLA) of which United Parcel Service (UPS) belongs to is the RLA was specifically designed to govern the unique circumstances of national transportation systems to protect the flow of commerce which is a right and a positive for the economic growth.  [10]The Employee Free Choice Act aka Card Check is a separate, unrelated piece of proposed legislation that seeks to amend the National Labour Relations Act. Among other things, EFCA would eliminate employees’ absolute right to a secret ballet vote in union elections, making it easier for unions to directly pressure people to sign up. It is considered that perhaps this would be a violation of a person’s freedom of autonomy and freedom of expression and privacy. Can a bargaining contract legally enforce inferred proclamations that infringe a person’s natural civil rights? It would be unjustly stated if that were so, but the power to eliminate such infringements are based on collective bargaining and arbitration clauses set up into pre-contractual and contractual phases of the final contract.

Personal Opinion of Conflict and Proposed Changes

There are two issues to consider when approaching the conflict dispute of Federal Express and UPS.  First, we must consider if it is fair and just for federal law to have supremacy over state law. Second, we must consider whether Federal Express has been correctly categorized under the mandates of the Railway Labour Act hence holding express governing power over the company. Can it be legally justified by statute or case precedent to determine such applicable status, keeping in mind UPS is in constant conflict with Federal Express’s classification under the RLA because it stipends their demographic growth as well as total economic growth?

State right-to-work laws are permitted under the NLRA hence, the overwhelming majority of employees within a state will receive the benefits of right-to-work provisions, even though the coverage of some employees will be pre-empted by other federal labour statutes. In effect these laws establish as much freedom as possible under current federal labour law. Remember, a fundamental principle of the Constitution is that Congress has the power to pre-empt state law. Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is pre-empted. [11](Gibbons v. Ogden). even in the absence of a direct conflict between state and federal law, a conflict exists if the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. [12](Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council).

FedEx Express remains an airline-cantered operation, with a pickup and delivery network fully integrated with their air network to move shipments door-to-door. As distinguished in [13]Kemper Insurance Companies v Federal Express both the Plaintiff and Federal Express vehemently agreed that Federal Express was to be classified as an ‘air carrier’ under federal law regulations code 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(2). Kemper argued that four of the packages shipped by Federal Express were not expressly shipped by air, rather ground transportation and in regards to those shipments; Federal Express should not be treated as an ‘air carrier’ and protected under Railway Labour Act. The [14]Carmack Amendment is a uniform national liability system for interstate carriers which provide certainty to both carrier and shipper. It specifically allows a carrier to require that all claims for loss or damage by a shipper be made in writing within nine months from the date of the loss. It also allows a carrier to limit its liability if all prerequisites have been met. The Carmack Amendment is presently codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 14706 et seq. However in this particular case the judge found that the Carmack Amendment did not apply to an air carrier such as Federal Express.

“It can certainly be justified that Federal Express be placed under the mandate of the Railway Labour Act by mere classification of definition under the Act which states:

‘The RLA defines the term “carrier” as any express company, sleeping-car company, carrier by railroad, subject to subtitle IV of title 49, and any company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under common control with any carrier by railroad which operates any equipment or facilities or performs any service (other than trucking service) in connection with the transportation, receipt, delivery, elevation , transfer in transit, refrigeration or icing, storage and handling of property transported by railroad.’” [15](“US Court of Appeals”, 2001).

Conclusion

The conflict of labour relations with respect to Federal Express Corporation were handled in a most appropriate manner with consideration to applicable legislation and case law precedent as stated in this paper. If I were the owner of Federal Express I would not make any changes to classification under the Railway Labour Act hence stand strong to support their current classification as distinguished in applicable case law and federal requirements.

[1] National Labour Relations Act

[2] Hastings, P. (2009) An Introduction to the Railway Labour Act Retrieved September 01, 2009 from http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/annual/2005/015.pdf

[3] Local 514, Transport Workers Union of America v. Keating, 212 F.Supp.2d 1319, 1325 (E.D. Ok. 2002)

[4] Railway Labour Act

[5] Civil Service Reform Act

[6] Postal Reorganization Act

[7] Precedent, Inc. (2009) Oklahoma Supreme Court Cases:  83 P.3d 835 LOCAL 514 TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA v. KEATING Retrieved September 01, 2009 from http://www.precydent.com/citation/83/P.3d/835

[8] [8]Federal Express Corporation vs. California Public Utilities Commission (936 F.2d 1075, 1078 9th Cir. 1991),

[9] Railway Labour Act Federal Express Corporation vs. California Public Utilities Commission Retrieved September 01, 2009 from http://ir.fedex.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=388559

[10] The Employee Free Choice Act

[11] Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), 22 U.S. 1

[12] Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372-73

[13] Kemper Insurance Companies v.  Federal Express Corporation. 252 F.3d 509 (1st Cir. 2001)

[14] Carmack Amendment

[15] US Court of Appeals (2001) for the First Circuit Kemper Insurance Companies v Federal Express Corporation Retrieved September 01, 2009 from http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2300.01A