공정대표의무는 배타적인 단체교섭대표 노동조합제도와 표리의 관계에서 인정되고 있다는 것이다. 따라서 공정대표의무는 노동조합에게만 인정되는 의무이다. 연방의회는 사적인 분재해결을 단체협약을 통하여 해결하는 것이 바람직하다는 입장에 서있는데, 이러한 의회의 입장은 공정대표의무 법리에 결정적인 영향을 미치고 있다. 공정대표의무는 그 대상이 인종차별금지에서 시작하여 오늘날에는 단체협약의 해석이나 운영뿐만 아니라 조합비징수, 쟁의행위 해결을 위한 단체협약 나아가 고용알선과정에 이르기까지 확대되어 있다. 연방대법원은 고충처리제도와 관련하여 노동조합에게 상당히 폭 넓은 재량을 인정하고 있어, 노동조합의 결정 등이 자의적, 차별적, 불성실한 경우에만 공정대표의무위반을 인정하고 있다. 연방대법원은 공정대표의무위반 소송과 관련하여 이러한 연방노동관계국의 선점권을 부정하고 공정대표의무위반 소송에 대한 연방법원의 관할권을 인정하고 있다. 나아가 공정대표의무위반 소송제기기간과 관련하여 연방대법원은 연방노동관계법상의 부당노동행위 구제신청과 관련한 기간을 원용하는 것이 연방법의 통일성 관점에서 필요하다고 하여 고충처리결과 내지 중재재정이 나온 이후에 6개월로 소송 제기기간문제를 해결하고 있다. 공정대표의무위반에 대한 구제내용으로서는 당해 사건이 해고인 경우, 복직, 소급임금, 부가적인 수당, 소송비 등이 포함되나, 여기에 징벌적 손해배상이 인정되는가에 대하여, 연방대법원은 부정적으로 해석하여 오고 있으나, 노동조합의 고의성 등이 있는 경우에는 징벌적 손해배상이 인정될 수 있다는 의견도 유력하게 주장되고 있다.
An author intends to introduce the duty of fair representation in U.S.A. in this article. Under the Railway Labor Act, the United States Supreme Court inferred a correlative duty, that is a duty of fair representation, to represent all employees within the bargaining unit without hostile discrimination, fairly, impartially, and in good faith in Steele case. The obligation of the duty of fair representation was also inferred under the NLRA in Ford Motor Company case by the Supreme Court. Conclusions are as follows: First, the Union as exclusive bargaining representative has exclusively right to bargain with an employer or its association, and takes only the duty. It is, therefore, an unfair labor practice for an employer to bargain with an individual employee without justice cause on the collective agreement. Even employees who might otherwise be in a position to secure favored treatment must sacrifice such treatment for the good of the collective. Second, the Congress declared that final adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is a desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes arising over the application or interpretation of an existing collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore the Supreme Court hold also that a wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents, subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion in grievance procedures or in collective bargaining etc. in Ford Motor case, and that a breach of the statutory duty of fair representation occurs only when a union"s conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith in Vaca case. Third, it is notable that the objects of the duty of fair representation are a very wide. They are not simply limited to a collective bargaining or administration of the collective agreement, they are also extended to the problem of the union dues and fees, the negotiation for resolving strike, the operation of hiring hall etc. Fourth, the union shop itself is, however, permissible under the NLRA Sec. 8(a)(3), therefore it is not a violation of the duty of fair representation for a bargaining representative to negotiate or contract it with an employer or its association. Even if an employee pays dues and fees, the condition of ‘membership’ for the NLRA Sec. 8(a)(3) purposes is satisfied and the employee may not be discharged for nonmembership. Fifth, the Supreme Court hold, in Vaca case, that the Congress itself has carved out exceptions to the Board"s exclusive jurisdiction, and the LMRA Sec. 303 expressly permits anyone injured by a violation of the NLRA Sec. 8(b)(4) to recover damages in a federal court even though a breach of the duty of fair representation as unfair labor practices are also remediable by the NLRB. Sixth, the Supreme Court hold, in DelCostello case, that in the NLRA Sec. 10(b), the Congress established a limitations period attuned to what it viewed as the proper balance between the national interests in stable bargaining relationships and finality of private settlements, and an employee"s interest in setting aside what he views as an unjust settlement under the collective-bargaining system. In conclusion the Supreme Court hold that the need for uniformity among procedures counsels the adoption of the NLRA Sec. 10(b) as the appropriate limitations period for lawsuits such as a breach of the duty of fair representation Finally, the Supreme Court hold, in International Brotherhood of Elec. Workers case, that just as unlimited access to the grievance process could undermine collective bargaining, so too the threat of punitive damages could disrupt the responsible decisionmaking essential to peaceful labor relations. It concludes that, because general labor policy disfavors punishment, and the adverse consequences of punitive damages awards could be substantial, punitive damages may not be assessed against a union that breaches its duty of fair representation by failing properly to pursue a grievance.