Electromation Vs Nlb Case Study
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), in 1992 changed how nonunion employees and managers could gather and organize employee committees with the case Electromation, Inc. vs NLRB. With this act organizations must be careful with creating employee committees that could otherwise be deemed unlawful. They must avoid allowing any of the management team to direct or influence the work of the committee, as well as members of the committee are not allowed to give the impression that they represent the views of their fellow coworkers. Both of these examples took place in the Electromation, Inc. vx NLRB case and are now considered infringements on the NLRA and are deemed unlawful. This act forced managers and employees to either forgo employee and
…show more content…
management involved action committee’s and/or to choose unionizing their organization.
Summary
The case 1992: Electromation, Inc.
vs NLRB stemmed from the formation of an employee based committee inside a small company of 200 employees. The reason for the creation of the employee based committee was due to financial problems they were experiencing in the late 1980s that caused them to decide on the elimination of the employee attendance bonus policy and the wage increase for the coming year. This policy change did not sit well with the employees who responded with a petition objecting to the change in company policy. After the president met with his supervisor staff to discuss the concerns and complaints of the employees, he realized that he would need employee participation in order to resolve or come to a mutual agreement regarding the issues at hand. In response, Electromation’s management team created five action committees: Absenteeism/infractions, No-smoking policy, Communication network, Pay progression for premium positions, and the Attendance bonus program. The committees were comprised of a selected number of employees that were chosen out of a group of volunteers. Electromation’s management team also delegated the number of employees in each committee and only allowed each chosen employee to be a part of only one of the five committees. According to the source these committees met on a weekly basis. The basis of each of the committees was for the members to collaborate together various ideas from their fellow coworkers that could be incorporated …show more content…
into the work of the committees as well as to inform their coworkers about what was “going on” in the company and the committees.
Unfortunately, these committees were in effect for less than a month when Teamsters union stepped in, demanding for recognition to Electromation. After this the NLRB Administrative Law Judge deemed that the action committees were “Unlawful employer-dominated labor organizations. (p. 560).
The Main Issues
The reason why the Electromation’s employee committees were unlawful was because of the ruling in 1935 by the NLRB which is put in place to stop the development of employee participation programs in nonunion firms (Leef, 1996).
According to Labor Law (2015), “Under the NLRA, sections 2(5) and 8(A)(2), employers are forbidden to create employer dominated company unions” (p.3). The Electromation’s management team went against this act and created committees that were seen as "labor organization" for the reason that the five groups made proposals on behalf of all employees concerning various employee issues, concerns and proposals. The issues and proposals were brought before Electromation’s management team and were discussed and then either accepted or rejected by management. The problem with this approach was that the company had unlawfully dominated the committee allowing their management to create and announced the meeting of the committee (source). The management team also determined the structure and function of the committee, allowing management to have the power to veto ideas, select the members, chose the topics to discuss, and allowed the meetings to be held on site during work hours (CCH Incorporated, 1999). Electromation’s management team also provided support to the group through supplies and funds to help the committee organize. Because of the countless errors that Electromation’s management team made regarding their action committees, they were forced to
cease involvement in the committees and were subjected to a lawsuit with the NLRB in which the NLRB Administrative Law Judge determined and agreed that the committees were unlawful.
Assessment of the Outcomes Due to the ruling by the NLRA employees must now exercise caution with company employee committees. In fact, employers should consider exploring alternatives to employee committees such as attitude surveys or focus groups to collect information on employee’s ideas, issues and proposals (CCH Incorporated, 1999). If a committee is still created they must abide by the rules delegated by the NLRA. The committee must rotate its members, as well as avoid letting management direct the goals of the committee, and they must not promote that the committee is representing the views of the other employees. The managers should be advised that the committee is not and should not be used as a bargaining agent or for management’s personal goals and interests (CCH Incorporated, 1999). Management should also take heed that if they permit the committee to have decision-making authority that then management will not be able to veto the decisions made by the committee (CCH Incorporated, 1999). In fact, according to CCH Incorporated (1999), “Management should participate only if there is a majority rule (not consensus, which can be interpreted as a veto) or in an advisory or observer role” (p.5). It would be a good idea and beneficial for an organization to consult with legal counsel before implementing employee committees.
Recommendations
My general recommendation for any nonunion organization would be to avoid allowing any employee committees in the workplace. Other ideas that firms may use to gather information, data, and feedback on its employee satisfaction as well as their recommendations would be to do a biannual employee satisfaction survey and/or a recommendations box/survey. The key to making something like this work is to make the surveys anonymous and easy to access for the employees. Additionally, once the feedback has been gathered the employee must use it! Otherwise employees will quit providing feedback and completing the surveys. This can be achieved by sharing some of the results with the whole organization and creating benchmarks for the desired improvements (Donnelly, 2010). In fact according to Donnelly (2010) “Some companies will set up a goals monitoring system either online or on an office white board tracking efforts at reaching those goals so employees can be reminded of the progress” (p. 3). If it is unavoidable for a firm to have employee committees then I would suggest for them to either seeking legal counsel on the matter or to go forth and implement a company union.
If the organization desires to have employee committees then they should tread lightly and set up concrete guidelines to prevent a lawsuit from the NLRB. Guidelines would include not allowing members of the committee to represent their co-workers by gathering their ideas and recommendations and presenting them to the committee and not allowing management to participate in the committee or influence or veto ideas presented in the committee. Furthermore, the committee must not be supported by management through supplies, a place to meet or provided them with any monetary support.
Conclusion
Overall, Electromation’s action committees were unlawful and went against the NLRB act of 1935. This act was created and put in place in order to allow nonunion workers to only have a voice in their place of work if they unionize. The hope for this act was to prevent employee committees and force employees to choose unionization. Once unionized the organization must follow all the delegated union rules. Overall, it seems that this act was created by the NLRB to help the declining unionization numbers and the case Electromation Inc. vs NLRB was a shining example of them enforcing the 1935 act.
management involved action committee’s and/or to choose unionizing their organization.
Summary
The case 1992: Electromation, Inc.
vs NLRB stemmed from the formation of an employee based committee inside a small company of 200 employees. The reason for the creation of the employee based committee was due to financial problems they were experiencing in the late 1980s that caused them to decide on the elimination of the employee attendance bonus policy and the wage increase for the coming year. This policy change did not sit well with the employees who responded with a petition objecting to the change in company policy. After the president met with his supervisor staff to discuss the concerns and complaints of the employees, he realized that he would need employee participation in order to resolve or come to a mutual agreement regarding the issues at hand. In response, Electromation’s management team created five action committees: Absenteeism/infractions, No-smoking policy, Communication network, Pay progression for premium positions, and the Attendance bonus program. The committees were comprised of a selected number of employees that were chosen out of a group of volunteers. Electromation’s management team also delegated the number of employees in each committee and only allowed each chosen employee to be a part of only one of the five committees. According to the source these committees met on a weekly basis. The basis of each of the committees was for the members to collaborate together various ideas from their fellow coworkers that could be incorporated …show more content…
into the work of the committees as well as to inform their coworkers about what was “going on” in the company and the committees.
Unfortunately, these committees were in effect for less than a month when Teamsters union stepped in, demanding for recognition to Electromation. After this the NLRB Administrative Law Judge deemed that the action committees were “Unlawful employer-dominated labor organizations. (p. 560).
The Main Issues
The reason why the Electromation’s employee committees were unlawful was because of the ruling in 1935 by the NLRB which is put in place to stop the development of employee participation programs in nonunion firms (Leef, 1996).
According to Labor Law (2015), “Under the NLRA, sections 2(5) and 8(A)(2), employers are forbidden to create employer dominated company unions” (p.3). The Electromation’s management team went against this act and created committees that were seen as "labor organization" for the reason that the five groups made proposals on behalf of all employees concerning various employee issues, concerns and proposals. The issues and proposals were brought before Electromation’s management team and were discussed and then either accepted or rejected by management. The problem with this approach was that the company had unlawfully dominated the committee allowing their management to create and announced the meeting of the committee (source). The management team also determined the structure and function of the committee, allowing management to have the power to veto ideas, select the members, chose the topics to discuss, and allowed the meetings to be held on site during work hours (CCH Incorporated, 1999). Electromation’s management team also provided support to the group through supplies and funds to help the committee organize. Because of the countless errors that Electromation’s management team made regarding their action committees, they were forced to
cease involvement in the committees and were subjected to a lawsuit with the NLRB in which the NLRB Administrative Law Judge determined and agreed that the committees were unlawful.
Assessment of the Outcomes Due to the ruling by the NLRA employees must now exercise caution with company employee committees. In fact, employers should consider exploring alternatives to employee committees such as attitude surveys or focus groups to collect information on employee’s ideas, issues and proposals (CCH Incorporated, 1999). If a committee is still created they must abide by the rules delegated by the NLRA. The committee must rotate its members, as well as avoid letting management direct the goals of the committee, and they must not promote that the committee is representing the views of the other employees. The managers should be advised that the committee is not and should not be used as a bargaining agent or for management’s personal goals and interests (CCH Incorporated, 1999). Management should also take heed that if they permit the committee to have decision-making authority that then management will not be able to veto the decisions made by the committee (CCH Incorporated, 1999). In fact, according to CCH Incorporated (1999), “Management should participate only if there is a majority rule (not consensus, which can be interpreted as a veto) or in an advisory or observer role” (p.5). It would be a good idea and beneficial for an organization to consult with legal counsel before implementing employee committees.
Recommendations
My general recommendation for any nonunion organization would be to avoid allowing any employee committees in the workplace. Other ideas that firms may use to gather information, data, and feedback on its employee satisfaction as well as their recommendations would be to do a biannual employee satisfaction survey and/or a recommendations box/survey. The key to making something like this work is to make the surveys anonymous and easy to access for the employees. Additionally, once the feedback has been gathered the employee must use it! Otherwise employees will quit providing feedback and completing the surveys. This can be achieved by sharing some of the results with the whole organization and creating benchmarks for the desired improvements (Donnelly, 2010). In fact according to Donnelly (2010) “Some companies will set up a goals monitoring system either online or on an office white board tracking efforts at reaching those goals so employees can be reminded of the progress” (p. 3). If it is unavoidable for a firm to have employee committees then I would suggest for them to either seeking legal counsel on the matter or to go forth and implement a company union.
If the organization desires to have employee committees then they should tread lightly and set up concrete guidelines to prevent a lawsuit from the NLRB. Guidelines would include not allowing members of the committee to represent their co-workers by gathering their ideas and recommendations and presenting them to the committee and not allowing management to participate in the committee or influence or veto ideas presented in the committee. Furthermore, the committee must not be supported by management through supplies, a place to meet or provided them with any monetary support.
Conclusion
Overall, Electromation’s action committees were unlawful and went against the NLRB act of 1935. This act was created and put in place in order to allow nonunion workers to only have a voice in their place of work if they unionize. The hope for this act was to prevent employee committees and force employees to choose unionization. Once unionized the organization must follow all the delegated union rules. Overall, it seems that this act was created by the NLRB to help the declining unionization numbers and the case Electromation Inc. vs NLRB was a shining example of them enforcing the 1935 act.