The Union’s Demand for Recognition and Bargaining Rights
Case study 15-1:
The Union’s Demand for Recognition and Bargaining Rights
1. Evaluate the various claims made by the union and counterclaims made by the company regarding the charges of unfair labor practices. Which of the arguments are most persuasive?
The union claimed that the company had violated Section 8(a)(1) of LMRA by:
Repeat investigate employees about union activities
Threat employees that they would take the benefits if the selected union present for them
Threat employees because they refused to indentified union’s members
Informed to employees that they knew (or hear) the employee had joined the union
Encourage employees do not support the union by pay for certain medical benefits
On the other side, the company argued that the investigation and violation had performed by former supervisor Larry Melton were not coercive and legitimate, and if he threat the election but now he terminated and he did not present for views of the company. Therefore the company did not have any relation to these violations. Additionally, the statement of Leo Nord, a new supervisor, is personally, and it was a legitimate prediction. Finally, they said that if the company has violated the act anyway, these just minor and did not make any influence on the results of representative election.
In my opinion, the argument of union is more persuasive than company because obviously the company had violated the act and although Larry Melton does not work for the company any more but he was presented for company at that time. Larry was a manager of the company; therefore his actions or speeches were present for the voice of company. Hence they can’t deny that they are not guilty.
2. Was the statement by Nord to Snow on the date of the representational election a threat or a legitimate prediction and personal opinion protected by the free speech provisions of the act?
At the morning of the representational election, Leo Nord, a new supervisor, told Cecil Snow
The Union’s Demand for Recognition and Bargaining Rights
1. Evaluate the various claims made by the union and counterclaims made by the company regarding the charges of unfair labor practices. Which of the arguments are most persuasive?
The union claimed that the company had violated Section 8(a)(1) of LMRA by:
Repeat investigate employees about union activities
Threat employees that they would take the benefits if the selected union present for them
Threat employees because they refused to indentified union’s members
Informed to employees that they knew (or hear) the employee had joined the union
Encourage employees do not support the union by pay for certain medical benefits
On the other side, the company argued that the investigation and violation had performed by former supervisor Larry Melton were not coercive and legitimate, and if he threat the election but now he terminated and he did not present for views of the company. Therefore the company did not have any relation to these violations. Additionally, the statement of Leo Nord, a new supervisor, is personally, and it was a legitimate prediction. Finally, they said that if the company has violated the act anyway, these just minor and did not make any influence on the results of representative election.
In my opinion, the argument of union is more persuasive than company because obviously the company had violated the act and although Larry Melton does not work for the company any more but he was presented for company at that time. Larry was a manager of the company; therefore his actions or speeches were present for the voice of company. Hence they can’t deny that they are not guilty.
2. Was the statement by Nord to Snow on the date of the representational election a threat or a legitimate prediction and personal opinion protected by the free speech provisions of the act?
At the morning of the representational election, Leo Nord, a new supervisor, told Cecil Snow