Human Resource Management

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 245
  • Published : February 12, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Application Case 15-1

The Union’s Demand for Recognition and Bargaining Rights

The Union’s Demand for Recognition and Bargaining Rights
After reading Application Case 15-1 and the material in Chapter 15, the following questions were discussed;

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?

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? Why, or why not? 3. Was the company obligated to accept the union’s majority status claim on the basis of the authorization cards submitted by the union? Explain your answer. 4. If the company is found to have violated the act, what would be the appropriate remedy: a bargaining order or a new election? Explain your answer.

I begin my discussion with question number one.

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? 

 From the claims made by both the union and the company, l believe that the union had a stronger case than the company since some of the claims they had against the company were in line with the LMRA act under the section of unfair labor practices section 8(a).  They claimed the following had been done:

The company repeatedly interrogated the employees concerning their union activities; this is evidenced in the case when the company’s maintenance supervisor talked to some of the employees asking them about the union’s visit. He telephoned George Thompson, talked to Alice Coleman, he interrogated Theo Ewing and also Gloria Greer. Indirect threats were made to the employees regarding deprivation of benefits with the words: "you got a nice job, you got an apartment...this is your last chance." Employee Theodore Ewing was asked to keep his ears and eyes open and to let his Supervisor know if he heard anything about unionization. While doing this he violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Section 8(a) (1). Which states it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by section 7” (Fortado, n.d)

The threatening of employees is also evidenced when the new supervisor Leo Nord told Cecil Snow on the day of the elections that if the union won, then the employer would take away the free rent apartments from the janitor’s help and charge the head janitor for the second bedroom in their apartments.” (Ivancevich, 2010).

The employers also promised the employees that it was going to improve their sickness and health benefit program including a new benefit to cover maternity expenses for employees and their spouses. Even though the company claimed that it was part of their annual review which comes during the Christmas season, it still sounds like a payoff to the employees so that they would not sign with the union. Since if they wanted to improve their employees’ health cover they should not have waited until the union offered to represent the employees for them say that they are reviewing it. The company announcement of ‘improving its sickness and health benefits program for employees, including a new benefit to cover maternity medical expenses for employees and their spouses’, is equivalent to “giving an unscheduled raise shortly before a representation election”, is a violation of the National Labor Relation Act Section 8(a)(1);

The Act states: It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by section 7.”

What does this passage refer to?

Threatening to...
tracking img