Thursday, March 24, 2005
Almost every week since 11 September 2003, the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration has prepared a "Briefing on Economic and Labor Market Conditions" to provide Department employees with capsule articles on employment and economic news. With the exception of one leaked issue, these reports have never been made available to the public until now. The MemoryHole has them available as a free download.
Thanks to the Law Librarian Blog for the tip.
The Labor Market Impact of High-Skill Immigration
by George J. Borjas - #11217 (LS)
The rapid growth in the number of foreign students enrolled in American universities has transformed the higher education system, particularly at the graduate level. Many of these newly minted doctorates remain in the United States after receiving their doctoral degrees, so that the foreign student influx can have a significant impact in the labor market for high-skill workers. Using data drawn from the Survey of Earned Doctorates and the Survey of Doctoral Recipients, the study shows that a foreign student influx into a particular doctoral field at a particular time had a significant and
adverse effect on the earnings of doctorates in that field who graduated at roughly the same time. A 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of doctorates lowers the wage of competing workers by about 3 percent.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
A & A Insulation Services, Inc. (22‑CA‑24669; 344 NLRB No. 27) Hazlet, NJ Feb. 28, 2005.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s motion for summary judgment with respect to all issues except those relating to the use of Camilo Guzman as a replacement employee for discriminatee Ken Johnson and the inclusion of Guzman’s earnings from January 5, 2002 to February 9, 2002 in Johnson’s proposed reimbursement. It concluded that the amounts due discriminatees James Cunningham and Keith Wagner are as stated in the compliance specification, and ordered the Respondent to pay the amounts, plus interest accrued to the date of payment. The Board ordered a hearing limited to the issues relating to the use of Guzman as a replacement employee in the calculation of the backpay due to discriminatee Johnson.
In an unpublished order dated November 4, 2002, the Board directed the Respondent to make whole discriminatees Cunningham, Johnson, and Wagner for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the Respondent’s discrimination against them. On April 30, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered an unpublished judgment enforcing the Board’s order.
A controversy having arisen over the amount of backpay due the discriminatees under the Board’s order, the Regional Director issued a compliance specification and notice of hearing identifying the amounts of backpay due. The Board found that the Respondent’s answer is sufficiently specific under the Board’s Rules and Regulations to warrant a hearing on the appropriateness of the use of Guzman as a replacement employee for Johnson in the calculation of backpay due Johnson and denied the General Counsel’s motion for summary with respect to those issues. It deemed the other allegations in the compliance specification to be admitted as true and granted summary judgment as to them because the Respondent failed to deny the allegations in the manner prescribed in Section 102.56(b), or to explain its failure to do so.
Bliss Clearing Niagara, Inc. Hastings, MI Feb. 28, 2005.
In affirming the administrative law judge’s findings, the Board held that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discharging employees Mike Shapley and Duane Schantz because they participated in protected union activities; violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening, verbally harassing, and interrogating its employees, and by creating an impression of surveillance of its employees; and violated Section 8(a)(1) and (4) by depriving employees Larry Moran of the opportunity to work an additional shift due to his participation in proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board.
Clarian Health Partners, Inc. (25‑RC‑10225; 344 NLRB No. 28) Indianapolis, IN Feb. 28, 2005.
After consideration of the Employer’s request for review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election, the Board reversed the Regional Director’s unit determination and remanded this case for further proceedings.
The Regional Director found appropriate the petitioned-for multifacility unit of skilled maintenance employees at the Employer’s Indiana University Hospital (IU) and James Whitcomb Riley Hospital for Children (Riley). The Employer contended that the appropriate unit should also include skilled maintenance employees at its Methodist Hospital (Methodist) and four satellite facilities.
In determining whether a petitioned-for multifacility unit is appropriate, the Board evaluates the following factors: employees’ skills and duties; terms and conditions of employment; employee interchange; functional integration; geographic proximity; centralized control of management and supervision; and bargaining history. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, 341 NLRB No. 140 (2004); Bashas’, Inc., 337 NLRB 710 (2002). Evaluating the above factors, the Board found, contrary to the Regional Director, that the petitioned-for unit which includes employees only at IU and Riley, but not at Methodist, is not an appropriate unit for bargaining. It found that there is evidence of contact and interchange among employees at all three hospitals. The Board found that the skilled maintenance employees at IU and Riley do not share a community of interest distinct from that shared with skilled maintenance employees at Methodist; and that the employees at Methodist do not share a community of interest among themselves distinct from that they share with employees at IU and Riley. Accordingly, the Board deemed the petitioned-for unit inappropriate. As the Petitioner has not taken a clear position in regard to its willingness to proceed to an election in a unit different than the one found appropriate by the Regional Director, the case was remanded to the Regional Director for further appropriate action.
Foundation Press is pleased to announce the forthcoming publication of Labor Law Stories, edited by Laura J. Cooper (Minnesota) & Catherine L. Fisk (Duke). The book is part of Foundation Press's Law Stories Series of books. Here are the cases and authors featured in Labor Law Stories:
- NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), by Julius G. Getman (Texas) & Thomas C. Kohler (Boston College)
- Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 323 U.S. 192 (1944), by Deborah Malamud (NYU)
- NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956) & NLRB v. Insurance Agents’ Int’l Union, 361 U.S. 477 (1960), by Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt (Indiana)
- The Steelworkers Trilogy, by Katherine Van Wezel Stone (UCLA)
- NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), by Laura J. Cooper (Minnesota) & Dennis R. Nolan (South Carolina)
- Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization, 420 U.S. 50 (1975), by Marion Crain (North Carolina) & Calvin William Sharpe (Case Western)
- First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981), by Alan Hyde (Rutgers)
- Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB 990 (1992), by Robert B. Moberly (Arkansas)
- NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, 532 U.S. 706 (2001), by Marley Weiss (Maryland)
- Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), by Catherine L. Fisk (Duke) & Michael M. Wishnie (NYU)