Labor Relations Process - Case Studies 3.1 & 3.3
What challenges do you see with interpreting labor and employment laws and court decisions?
There are a lot of grey areas in interpreting labor and employment laws. No one case can exactly apply to another. The must rely on precedents but be able to adapt them. For example the three part test (mentioned below) can be adapted to almost any case involving supervisory status.
Case Study 3.1
1. Drake and Keeler could argue that they were engaged in a concerted and lawful act. This means two things, they were acting for two or more employees and not for personal gain; and they did it without “violence, sabotage, or a disproportionate loss or disruption to the employer relative to the seriousness or importance of the employees’ complaint or grievance.”
2. The employer could try and argue that the employee abandoned their jobs. However, as long as this was a concerted and lawful act the “employees are not required to provide management with an opportunity to resolve a complaint.”
3. I believe this would be an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP). The employees would have to file a ULP with the NLRB within (6) month of the date the violation occurred. The NLRB would investigate for merit (evidence). If merit is found the NLRB would try to establish a settlement. If a settlement could be reached it would be seen by an Administrative Law Judge to make a settlement. A settlement for this violation could range from reinstatement to back pay. It would also be typical for the employer to posting written notices for employee to inform them of these violations.
Case Study 3.3
1. According to the three part test, no, docking pilots are not supervisors. The three part test states that:
Part 1) "an employee must perform at least one of the 12 specific function outlined in the statutory definition of a supervisor under Section 2 (11) of the LMRA." According to the union representation the docking pilots could not hire, transfer, assign reward, discipline any other
There are a lot of grey areas in interpreting labor and employment laws. No one case can exactly apply to another. The must rely on precedents but be able to adapt them. For example the three part test (mentioned below) can be adapted to almost any case involving supervisory status.
Case Study 3.1
1. Drake and Keeler could argue that they were engaged in a concerted and lawful act. This means two things, they were acting for two or more employees and not for personal gain; and they did it without “violence, sabotage, or a disproportionate loss or disruption to the employer relative to the seriousness or importance of the employees’ complaint or grievance.”
2. The employer could try and argue that the employee abandoned their jobs. However, as long as this was a concerted and lawful act the “employees are not required to provide management with an opportunity to resolve a complaint.”
3. I believe this would be an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP). The employees would have to file a ULP with the NLRB within (6) month of the date the violation occurred. The NLRB would investigate for merit (evidence). If merit is found the NLRB would try to establish a settlement. If a settlement could be reached it would be seen by an Administrative Law Judge to make a settlement. A settlement for this violation could range from reinstatement to back pay. It would also be typical for the employer to posting written notices for employee to inform them of these violations.
Case Study 3.3
1. According to the three part test, no, docking pilots are not supervisors. The three part test states that:
Part 1) "an employee must perform at least one of the 12 specific function outlined in the statutory definition of a supervisor under Section 2 (11) of the LMRA." According to the union representation the docking pilots could not hire, transfer, assign reward, discipline any other