Campaign Threats or Implied Promise of Benefit?
Case Study 5-9
Question 1 No, the employer’s statement does not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the LMRA. The employer was merely pointing out facts to its employees based on the leaflets that the union had distributed to the employees. The employer was ensuing that everyone knew exactly bargaining entailed and what was at stake; for instance wages, benefits are subject to negotiations and there was no guarantees if wages would increase or decrease or even if you retained your currents benefits, all was open for discussion and negotiation. At no time did the employer threaten the employees with reprisals if they voted for the union.
Question 2
No, the employer’s statement does not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the LMRA. The employer was letting his employees know that their benefits just like their wages would be up for discussion and negotiations and that there are no guarantees in the outcome. Here again the employer referenced the leaflets that had been distributed to the employees that referred to improved employee benefits at some unionized plants. The employer simply reminded the employee’s that the company voluntarily gave it employee’s greater benefit packages and that the pay increases they received were due to the company’s compensation policy they have in place. The employer’s plant manager was only stating that the company had already started implementing new programs, buying new equipment, building a management team, improving working conditions and providing training for its employee, all of which had been underway, before the union began organizing its campaign and simply wanted the employees to give the company a chance.
Question 3 No, supervisors Bates and Lofton did not unlawfully interrogate the two employees. As long as there is the absence of threats or promises, an employer can question its employee about how they feel about the union. In each of these situations there was no threats conveyed nor were any promised made. The conversations
Question 1 No, the employer’s statement does not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the LMRA. The employer was merely pointing out facts to its employees based on the leaflets that the union had distributed to the employees. The employer was ensuing that everyone knew exactly bargaining entailed and what was at stake; for instance wages, benefits are subject to negotiations and there was no guarantees if wages would increase or decrease or even if you retained your currents benefits, all was open for discussion and negotiation. At no time did the employer threaten the employees with reprisals if they voted for the union.
Question 2
No, the employer’s statement does not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the LMRA. The employer was letting his employees know that their benefits just like their wages would be up for discussion and negotiations and that there are no guarantees in the outcome. Here again the employer referenced the leaflets that had been distributed to the employees that referred to improved employee benefits at some unionized plants. The employer simply reminded the employee’s that the company voluntarily gave it employee’s greater benefit packages and that the pay increases they received were due to the company’s compensation policy they have in place. The employer’s plant manager was only stating that the company had already started implementing new programs, buying new equipment, building a management team, improving working conditions and providing training for its employee, all of which had been underway, before the union began organizing its campaign and simply wanted the employees to give the company a chance.
Question 3 No, supervisors Bates and Lofton did not unlawfully interrogate the two employees. As long as there is the absence of threats or promises, an employer can question its employee about how they feel about the union. In each of these situations there was no threats conveyed nor were any promised made. The conversations