Definition of economic strikers. If the purpose of a strike is to obtain an economic concession from the employer, such as higher wages, shorter working hours, or better working conditions, strikers are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be dismissed, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired permanent replacements in good faith to fill the jobs of the economic strikers, if the strikers unconditionally request a return to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not have regular and substantially equivalent employment, they have the right to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified, if these jobs become vacant, if they or their collective representative have submitted an unconditional request for reinstatement. Illegal strike because of the objective. A strike may be illegal because a purpose or purpose of the strike is illegal. A strike in favour of an unfair labour practice by a union or that would incite an employer to engage in an unfair labour practice may be a strike for an illegal purpose. For example, it is unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee for failing to make certain legal payments to the union when no union security agreement is in place (Article 8 (a) (3)). A strike to force an employer to do so would be a strike for an illegal purpose and therefore an illegal strike.

These strikes are discussed in the context of various unfair labour practices in a later section of this guide. The phrase “Three hits and you`re out” is derived from baseball, where a hitter against whom three hits are recorded swings. In addition, section 8 (b) (4) of the Act prohibits striking for certain objects, although the objectives are not necessarily unlawful if they are achieved by other means. An example of this would be a strike to force Employer A to cease operations with Employer B. It is not illegal for Employer A to voluntarily cease operations with Employer B, nor is it illegal for a union to simply require it. However, it is illegal for the union to strike to force the employer to do so. These issues are discussed in more detail in the Explanatory Note to section 8 (b) (4). In any case, workers who participate in an illegal strike may be dismissed and are not entitled to reinstatement.

Legal and illegal strikes. The legality of a strike may depend on the purpose or purpose of the strike, its timing or the behaviour of the strikers. The purpose or objects of a strike and the legality of the objects are questions that are not always easy to determine. These issues often have to be decided by the National Labour Relations Board. The consequences can be serious for strikers and striking employers, as they involve reinstatement problems and payment arrears. It is clear from reading these two provisions that the law not only guarantees the right of workers to strike, but also restricts and restricts the exercise of this right. See, for example, restrictions on strikes in health facilities (see below). The California Three-Shot Penal Code was originally enacted in 1994. The essence of the Three Strikes Act was to require that an accused convicted of a new crime after a previous conviction for a serious crime be sentenced to imprisonment twice as long as the usual time allotted for the crime. If the accused was convicted of a crime involving two or more previous beatings, the law provided for a prison sentence of at least 25 years to life imprisonment. In the case of economic strikes, however, the employer is not obliged to withdraw the strikers immediately after the dispute is resolved. Economic strikers will continue to be considered workers and will be entitled to reinstatement if positions become vacant, but the employer is not required to reinstate an employee who has found substantially equivalent work elsewhere or who has given the employer a legitimate and substantial reason for not hiring that worker.

The hiring of permanent replacement workers has become an important management weapon against economic strikes, giving the employer the opportunity to hire non-unionized labor and threatening the local union with destruction. U.S. unions have failed to persuade Congress to amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow economic strikers to return immediately. A strike is usually legal if it is peaceful. A strike is never a legal excuse for violence, and physical violence and property damage are considered criminal acts. Employers who use violence against strikers are subject to the same penalties. The FindLaw Legal Dictionary – free access to over 8260 definitions of legal terms. Search for a definition or browse our legal glossaries. In early June 2018, an attempt by the Labour-led coalition government to repeal the Sentencing and Parole Act was blocked by Labour`s supporting partner, New Zealand First, and opposition parties National and ACT. NZ First had opposed the repeal of the Three Strikes Act, which prompted Justice Minister Andrew Little to abandon the attempt. [46] [47] [48] On November 11, 2021, Justice Minister Kris Faafoi announced the repeal of the law.

[49] Nothing in this Act, except as expressly provided for in this Act, shall be construed as interfering, impairing or diminishing in any way the right to strike or affecting the limitations or limitations of that right. It should be noted that the following is only a brief overview. A detailed analysis of the right to strike and the application of the law to all factual situations that may arise in relation to strikes would be beyond the scope of these documents. Workers and employers expecting to participate in a strike should be counselled carefully and competently. While three-shot laws aim to reduce violent crime and target people whose behaviour has not been deterred by more conventional approaches to punishment, they have been the subject of a constitutional challenge. In particular, the petitioners challenged the Three Strikes laws for violating the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court showed respect for state legislators and upheld the Three Strikes Act on the grounds that states have both “a legitimate interest in deterring and separating habitual criminals” and the power to make policy decisions in accordance with that interest. In fact, the Supreme Court further stated that sentences should only be quashed if they are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime, a standard applicable only in “extremely rare” and “extreme” cases. Article 7 of the National Industrial Relations Act provides, inter alia: “Workers have the right. participate in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual assistance or protection. Strikes are one of the concerted activities protected by this article for workers. Article 13 also concerns the right to strike. It reads: Unfair labour practices defined by strikers.

Employees who strike to protest their employer`s unfair labour practices are called unjust work practices strikers. These strikers cannot be dismissed or replaced permanently. If the strike ends, unfair labour practices give strikers without serious misconduct the right to return to their jobs, even if workers hired for their work are to be fired. Some criticisms of the three-shot laws are that they clog up the justice system, with defendants taking cases to court to avoid life sentences, and clogging prisons with defendants who must be incarcerated pending trials because the likelihood of a life sentence makes them a flight risk. Life imprisonment is also an expensive and potentially ineffective prison option, as many prisoners serving these sentences are older and therefore have a low risk of reoffending, both costly to health care and statistically low. Relatives of prisoners serving long prison sentences can also become a burden on social benefits.