A survey of fifty years of research on the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts reveals that researchers' conclusions about the NLRA and its enforcement have generally depended upon their perceptions of the law's purpose; most researchers do not seem to consult relevant research outside their own disciplines; and some important aspects of the NLRA have received little attention. The authors recommend, among other things, that future studies focus on the law's impact on workers, unions, and employers, rather than on the congressional intent behind the NLRA.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/info/2523537

The NLRA at Fifty: A Research Appraisal and Agenda

The future of unions as political organizations

Union Recognition: A Comparative Analysis of the Pros and Cons of a Legal Procedure

In interpreting the provision of the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts that permits the National Labor Relations Board to require that an employer reimburse a discriminatorily discharged employee for lost wages, the courts have embraced a doctrine of individualism, according to the author of this article, thus impeding the development of collective bargaining. In the absence of dear indication of Congressional intent, it should be assumed, he contends, that the purpose of the back-pay remedy is to discourage employer interference with group, action, i.e. collective bargaining. The courts, however, have pursued a policy on back pay based on an individualistic, common-law interpretation which disregards, rather than fosters, the interest of the worker group. (Author's abstract courtesy EBSCO.)

David J. Farber

Papers

Reversion to Individualism: The Back-Pay Doctrines of the NLRB