Home > Legal:法律 > Yellow Dog Contract 黄犬合同

Yellow Dog Contract 黄犬合同

Yellow-dog Contract  黄犬合同

 

A yellow-dog contract (a yellow-dog clause[1] of a contract, or an ironclad oath) is an agreement between an employer and an employee in which the employee agrees, as a condition of employment, not to be a member of a labor union. In the United States, such contracts were, until the 1930s, widely used by employers to prevent the formation of unions, most often by permitting employers to take legal action against union organizers. In 1932, yellow-dog contracts were outlawed in the United States under the Norris-LaGuardia Act.[2][3]

黄犬合同(合同中的黄犬条款[1],或铁皮誓言)是雇主和雇员之间的协议,雇员同意不成为工会会员是受雇条件之一。在美国,直到20世纪30年代,这样的合同广泛地被雇主用来预防工会的成立,最常见的就是允许雇主采取法律行动对付工会筹组人。1932年,黄犬合同在美国的Norris-LaGuardia法令中被禁止[2][3]。

The term yellow-dog clause can also have a different meaning: non-compete clauses within or appended to a non-disclosure agreement to prevent an employee from working for other employers in the same industry.[4]

黄犬条款这个名词也可以有不同的含义: 内部不竞争条款或附加在不披露协议之上,防止雇员为同业的雇主工作[4]。

 

Contents  目录

  • Origin of term and brief history  词源与简史
  • Yellow-dog union  黄犬工会
  • See also  另见
  • References  参考文献

 

Origin of Term and Brief History  词源与简史

In the 1870s, a written agreement containing a pledge not to join a union was commonly referred to as the “Infamous Document”. This strengthens the belief that American employers in their resort to individual contracts were consciously following English precedents. This anti-union pledge was also called an “iron clad document”, and from this time until the close of the 19th century “iron-clad” was the customary name for the non-union promise. Beginning with New York in 1887, sixteen states wrote on their statute books declarations making it a criminal act to force employees to agree not to join unions.[citation needed] The Congress of the United States incorporated in the Erdman Act of 1898 a provision relating to carriers engaged in interstate commerce.

在19世纪70年代,书面协议里包含了不加入工会的承诺通常都被称为“不名誉文件”。这种文件加强了一个信念,那就是美国雇主在诉诸个人合同时,有意追随英国的先例。这种反工会的承诺也被称为“铁皮文件”,并从这个时候起直到19世纪结束为止,“铁皮”是承诺不加入工会的的俗称。1887年从纽约开始,十六个州在他们的法典中明文宣告,迫使雇员同意不加入工会的协议是一种罪行。美国议会在1898年订立的Erdman厄尔曼法令收纳了跟州际贸易的运营商有关的条文。

During the last decade of the 19th century and the opening years of the 20th, the individual, anti-union promise declined in importance as an instrument in labor warfare. Its novelty had worn off; workers no longer felt themselves morally bound to live up to it and union organizers, of course, wholly disregarded it. In the early 20th century, the individual, anti-union promise was resorted to frequently in coal mining and in the metal trades. And it was not membership in a union that was usually prohibited, but participation in those essential activities without which membership is valueless.

在19世纪最后十年以及20世纪开始时,作为劳工福利的一件工具,个人与反工会承诺已经式微,其新鲜度已经褪色,工人不再觉得自己在道义上要遵守承诺,当然,工会组织更是完全不理会。在20世纪初,个人与反工会的承诺还经常出现在煤炭开采和金属行业中。禁止的范围通常都不是工会的会员身份,而是参与那些基本活动,不参与的话这种会员身份就没有价值了。

In 1910, the International United Brotherhood of Leather Workers on Horse Goods, following an unsuccessful conference with the National Saddlery Manufacturers’ Association, called a national strike in the saddlery industry for the 8-hour day. The strike proved a failure, and a large number of employers required verbal or written promises to abandon and remain out of the organization as a condition of re-employment.

1910年,国际马用商品皮革工人团结兄弟会跟国家马具制造商协会召开的会议谈判不成功以后,号召马具行业的全国性大罢工八个小时。这次罢工以失败收场,因为大多数雇主要求雇员口头或书面承诺放弃和不参与工会活动作为再受雇条件之一。

In the case Adair v. United States, the United States Supreme Court’s majority held that the provision of the Erdman Act relating to discharge, because it would compel an employer to accept or retain the personal services of another person against the employer’s will, was a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. The court was careful, however, to restrict the decision to the provision relating to discharge, and to express no opinion as to the remainder of the law. The section of the Erdman Act making it criminal to force employees to sign anti-union agreements therefore remained unadjudicated.

Adair诉美国一案里,美国最高法院的多数票裁定,厄尔曼法令中有关解雇的条文会迫使雇主接受或保留另一个人违反雇主意志的个人服务,就违反了宪法的第五次修订法令,法令宣告,任何人不得未经法律的正当程序被剥夺自由或财产。法院小心地把裁定限制在跟解雇有关的条文中,对法律的其余部份就不发表任何意见。厄尔曼法令的章节规定,强迫雇员签反工会协议是刑事罪,因此是未经裁定的罪行。

The term yellow dog started appearing in the spring of 1921, in leading articles and editorials devoted to the subject which appeared in the labor press. Typical was the comment of the editor of the United Mine Workers’ Journal:

黄犬这个名词首度出现在1921年春天一个专门报道劳工报章里的一篇专栏文章。比较典型的是美国煤矿工人杂志的编辑评论:

This agreement has been well named. It is yellow dog for sure. It reduces to the level of a yellow dog any man that signs it, for he signs away every right he possesses under the Constitution and laws of the land and makes himself the truckling, helpless slave of the employer.[5]

这个协议命名得好,肯定是隻黄犬。任何签署这种合同的人都自贬为黄狗,因为他把宪法和这块土地赋予他的每一项权益都签给别人了,使自己成为雇主那个齿轮般无助的奴隶[5]。

Even though they were forbidden in the private sector by the Norris – LaGuardia Act in 1932, Yellow dog contracts were allowed in public sector, including with all sorts of government jobs, such as teachers, until the 1960s, beginning with precedent established in 1915 with Frederick v. Ownens.[6]

即使是在私营领域里被1932年的Norris-LaGuardia法令禁止,黄犬合同却在公共领域里获准使用,包括政府部门的各种工作,如教师,直到20世纪60年代才结束在1915年的Frederick诉Ownens一案中开始成立的先例[6]。

The purpose of the yellow dog contract is essentially to prevent employees from organizing. Such contracts are not enforceable, as they are illegal under the Norris-LaGuardia Act (Section 3).[7]

黄犬合同的目的主要是为了防止员工们组织工会。这样的合同不能强制执行,因为根据“Norris-LaGuardia法”(第3部)是非法的[7]。

 

Yellow-dog Union  黄犬工会

A yellow-dog union, sometimes also known as a company union refers to an employee association calling itself a trade union but which, in fact, is affiliated covertly or which is operated openly by an employer.

黄犬联盟,有时也被称为公司联盟,是指雇员协会自称为工会,但是事实上却暗中隶属于或者由雇主公开经营。

 

See also  另见

  • Labour rights  劳工权益
  • Labour and employment law  劳工和就业法
  • Christian Labour Association of Canada  加拿大基督教劳工协会
  • Coppage v. Kansas 一案

 

References  参考文献

[1] ^ JargonDatabase.com definition

^JargonDatabase.com(术语库网站)定义

[2] ^ Kaushik Basu (January 2006). “Coercion, Contract and the Limits of the Market (CAE Working Paper #06-01)”.

^Kaushik Basu(2006年1月)著的“强制性,合同以及市场的局限(CAE工作文件#06-01)”。

[3] ^ Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-1933, (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1957), pp. 238-239

^Arthur Schlesinger,Jr.著的“旧秩序的危机”,1919-1933,(Houghton Miffin公司,波士顿,1957),238-239页

[4] ^ James Hague, compiler & editor, Stephen Biggs: Halcyon Days: Interviews with Classic Computer and Video Game Programmers, June 2002

^James Hague,编辑与编纂人,“Stephen Biggs:Halcyon日:访问旧电脑以及电玩程序编写员”,2002年6月。

[5] ^ Joel I. Seidman, The Yellow Dog Contract, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1932, Ch. 1, pp.11-38

^Joel I.Seidman著的“黄犬合约“,Johns Hopkins出版社,1932,第一章,11-38页。

[6] ^ Slater, Joseph E.. Public Workers: Government Employee Unions, the Law and the State, 1900 – 1962. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 2004.

^Slater,Joseph E著的“公共员工:政府雇员工会,法律与国家”,1900-1962。Ithaca,纽约:ILR出版社,2004.

[7] ^ Roberts, Harold S. (1986) Roberts’ Dictionary of Industrial Relations (3rd ed.). p. 800.

^Roberts,Harold S.(1986)著的“Robert的工业关系字典”(第三版)第800页。

 

Categories  分类

  • Contract law  合同法
  • Labour law  劳动法
  • History of labor relations in the United States  美国的劳工关系史
  • History of the United States (1918–1945)  美国历史(1918年至1945年)

 

Other Categories  其他分类

Contract law  合同法

Part of the common law series  普通法系列的一部分

Contract formation  合同的订立

Offer and acceptance  邀约和承约:Mailbox rule 邮箱规则

Mirror image rule 镜像规则• Invitation to treat 邀请作交易

Firm offer 确定的邀约• Consideration 代价

Defenses against formation  抗辩合约的成立

Lack of capacity 能力不足

Duress 胁迫• Undue influence 不当的影响

Illusory promise 虚假的承诺• Statute of frauds 欺诈条例

Non est factum 否认定理契约的答辩

Contract interpretation  合同的释义

Parol evidence rule 口头证据规则

Contract of adhesion 附着力合同

Integration clause 集成条款

Contra proferentem 对条文发起人不利的解读

Excuses for non-performance 不履行的藉口

Mistake 过失• Misrepresentation 失实陈述

Frustration of purpose 目的受挫• Impossibility 不可能性质

Impracticability 不可行性质• Illegality 不合法

Unclean hands 不洁的手• Unconscionability 不合情理性质

Accord and satisfaction 协定和满意度

Rights of third parties  第三方的权利

Privity of contract 相互关系的合同

Assignment 转让• Delegation 转授

Novation 约务更替• Third party beneficiary 第三方受益人

Breach of contract  违约

Anticipatory repudiation 预期废除• Cover 承保

Exclusion clause 摒除条款• Efficient breach 有效率违约

Deviation 偏差• Fundamental breach 基本的违反

Remedies  补救措施

Specific performance 具体表现

Liquidated damages 算定的赔偿金

Penal damages 刑事赔偿• Rescission 撤销

Quasi-contractual obligations  半合同法律责任

Promissory estoppel 承诺不反悔

Quantum meruit 合理金额/按劳计酬

Related areas of law  相关领域的法律

Conflict of laws 法律冲突• Commercial law 商业法

Other common law areas  其他普通法适用地区

Tort law 侵权法·Property law 产权法

Wills, trusts and estates 遗嘱,信托和产业

Criminal law 刑法• Evidence 证据

 

—— END ——

 

Source > Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow-dog_clause

Translated by > BlogHost — hkTan

Word Count > approx.870 words in English

 

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: