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 that the employer would take the rent free apartment away and charge for the second bed room in their apartment if the union won the election. Although there are just some words from personally but it can threat to the election very much because it could make an effect on the election that could make the result become untrue. More over as a supervisor position he must know that he present for the interest of company. Hence in this case take care about his word is necessary especially at this very sensitive period.
3. Was the company obligated to accept the union’s majority status claim on the basis of the authorization cards submitted by the union? According to the Wagner Act passed in 1935, the authorization card is a document indicating that employees wan to be represented by a union in collective bargaining. It stated that at least 30 percent of the employee must sign before NLRB can be petitioned to hold a representation election. In this case the union lost the representation election six to four. That mean the union lost the right to present for employees therefore the company does not obligated to accept the union’s majority claim. However the union can claim that the company had violated the act and request the company reelection.
4. If the company is found to have violated the act, what would be the appropriate remedy, a bargaining order or a new election? In my opinion, if the company is found to have violated the act, a bargaining order is fair and more appropriate than a new election because if they hold a new selection after violation interfering of company, how can it brings a fair result for the union and employees? More over with all the evidences from employees, a new selection is not necessary.
Ivancevich, J. M. (2010). Human resource management (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. http://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/our-history/1935-passage-wagner-act