The Impact of the Collyer Policy of Deferral: An Empirical Study
通过分析50个延期仲裁案例和工会代表访谈，比较了延期与不延期下工会获得的救济结果，发现8(a)(5)案件延期常导致与法定目标不符的结果，而8(a)(3)案件则更符合法定目标。
This study reports the results of an examination of NLRB regional office records on 50 cases deferred to arbitration under the Collyer policy, together with the results of interviews with union representatives involved in those cases. The author compares the remedies unions achieved through the grievance-arbitration process in deferred unfair labor practice cases considered meritorious by the regional office with the remedies the regional office would probably have implemented in the absence of deferral. The data indicate that deferral of 8(a)(5) cases frequently resulted in outcomes not compatible with statutory objectives, particularly in cases resolved short of arbitration. In contrast, Collyer very often produced statutorily compatible decisions in 8(a)(3) cases. Finally, in some cases unions achieved gains in the grievance procedure that they probably would not have won had they relied solely on the Board's compliance process.