|
The Lloyd–La Follette Act of 1912 began the process of protecting civil servants in the United States from unwarranted or abusive removal by codifying "just cause" standards previously embodied in presidential orders. It defines "just causes" as those that would promote the "efficiency of the service." August 24, 1912, § 6, , The Act further states that "the right of employees... to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied." == Legislative history == Under the leadership of Republican Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr.,〔http://www.napfe.com/mg0701wc.htm〕 the United States Congress enacted the Act with the intention of conferring job protection rights on federal employees which they had not previously had. Prior to the enactment of this language, there was no such statutory inhibition on the authority of the government to discharge a federal employee, and an employee could be discharged with or without cause for conduct which was not protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The act was passed after the Theodore Roosevelt (in 1902) and Taft (in 1909) administrations prohibited federal employees from communicating with Congress without authorization from their superiors. This language was later placed in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and codified in . The purpose of this Act was to allow Congress to obtain uncensored, essential information from federal employees. Congress intended to allow the federal workers direct access to Congress in order to register complaints about conduct by their supervisors and to report corruption or incompetence.〔(DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT EMPLOYEES ACT OF 1999, Report of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE, to accompany H.R. 858, TO AMEND CHAPTER 17 OF TITLE 11, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR PERSONNEL PROTECTION FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT EMPLOYEES )〕 In ''Arnett v. Kennedy'', 416 U.S. 134 (1974),〔(FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code )〕 the United States Supreme Court addressed questions about the Act. It held that the Act's standard of employment protection, which describes as explicitly as is feasible in view of the wide variety of factual situations where employees' statements might justify dismissal for "cause" the conduct that is ground for removal, is not impermissibly vague or overbroad in regulating federal employees' speech. One of the primary purposes of the Act was to protect those who criticize of superiors from official retribution. Senator La Follette gave the following example of an abuse sought to be cured by the bill :The cause for (employee's ) dismissal was that he gave publicity to the insanitary conditions existing in some part of the post-office building in Chicago where the clerks were required to perform their services.... ()e furnished some facts to the press of Chicago, and the publication was made of the conditions. They were simply horrible.... The public health officers of Chicago, as soon as their attention was called to the conditions, condemned the situation as they found it; and yet this young man, one of the brightest fellows I have met, was removed from the service because, he had given publicity to these outrageous conditions. (1912). The Act was thus the first federal law enacted specifically to protect whistleblowers. The history and scope of the Act was further described by the Supreme Court of the United States in ''Bush v. Lucas'', 462 U.S. 367, 103 S.Ct. 2404 (1983).〔(findlaw.com ), quoting directly from the decision〕 Congressional attention to the problem of motivated removals was again prompted by the issuance of Executive Orders by Presidents Roosevelt and Taft that forbade federal employees to communicate directly with Congress without the permission of their supervisors.... These “gag orders,” enforced by dismissal, were cited by several legislators as the reason for enacting the Lloyd-LaFollette Act in 1912, , § 6.FN20 That statute... explicitly guaranteed that the right of civil servants “to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to any committee or member thereof, shall not be denied or interfered with.” FN22 As the House Report explained, this legislation was intended “to protect employees against oppression and in the right of free speech and the right to consult their representatives.” FN23 In enacting the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, Congress weighed the competing policy considerations and concluded that efficient management of government operations did not preclude the extension of free speech rights to government employees.FN24 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Lloyd–La Follette Act」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|