What Taft-Hartley Did to Joint-Employer Doctrine

Sachin S. Pandya
Additional contact information
Sachin S. Pandya: University of Connecticut

No q9t7z, LawArchive from Center for Open Science

Abstract: In the debate over joint-employer doctrine under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the prevailing view is that, because of how the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 amended the NLRA, the NLRA’s joint-employer legal standard must be consistent with the common-law of agency. This paper argues that this view is unsound. Taft-Hartley does not require the NLRA’s joint-employer legal standard to be consistent with the common-law of agency, and thus does not constrain how the National Labor Relations Board develops its joint-employer doctrine. To support this argument, the paper examines not only statutory text and legislative history, but also, among other sources, an original hand-coded dataset of National Labor Relations Board opinions issued in the decade before Taft-Hartley. The paper then shows what its argument implies not only for the NLRA, but also statutes with similarly drafted provisions, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Date: 2024-04-03
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://osf.io/download/660d5113e65c6018737d9b7b/

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:osf:lawarc:q9t7z

DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/q9t7z

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in LawArchive from Center for Open Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by OSF ().