Wood Idrl320 Assignment2
The Case of Mariposa Stores Limited
After reading the case of Mariposa Stores Limited, I have found a few similarities with the Wal-Mart case. Historically, we have found that employers have been opposed to unions from an economic standpoint. The actions of Mariposa towards their employees of Store 58, goes against the workers organizing efforts which i an example of defiance against the freedom to associate. In Alberta, there isn’t a no first collective agreement legislation. So in this case, Mariposa Stores Limited are determined not to be a unionized workforce. Therefore, if they can’t stop the certification drive, the next step would be for employers to prevent getting a first collective agreement.
In this case, employees from Store 58 were notified of a union meeting to discuss joining a union and than had the option to sign an application for membership if they chose to do so. The employees have the respective right to organize and seek certification by the various ULP provisions by the Labour Relations Act. When the employees have participated in a trade union discussion, they would than have a right to sign an agreement to join the union, keeping in mind that the employees are not forced to sign any agreement. The unions obligation in this case, is to file for direct certification and to organize a campaign for the employees. If the board approves the certification, the union would than have the right to bargain with the employer on behalf of the employees within the bargaining unit and to enter into a collective agreement setting out the terms and conditions of the employment. The union also has the duty and responsibility to represent those employees that are in the bargaining unit in the manner which isn’t arbitrary, discriminating, or in bad faith whether or not employees have joined the union. The employers in this case, have the obligation and the right to mange their workplace as needed, however, it is their role to run the business
After reading the case of Mariposa Stores Limited, I have found a few similarities with the Wal-Mart case. Historically, we have found that employers have been opposed to unions from an economic standpoint. The actions of Mariposa towards their employees of Store 58, goes against the workers organizing efforts which i an example of defiance against the freedom to associate. In Alberta, there isn’t a no first collective agreement legislation. So in this case, Mariposa Stores Limited are determined not to be a unionized workforce. Therefore, if they can’t stop the certification drive, the next step would be for employers to prevent getting a first collective agreement.
In this case, employees from Store 58 were notified of a union meeting to discuss joining a union and than had the option to sign an application for membership if they chose to do so. The employees have the respective right to organize and seek certification by the various ULP provisions by the Labour Relations Act. When the employees have participated in a trade union discussion, they would than have a right to sign an agreement to join the union, keeping in mind that the employees are not forced to sign any agreement. The unions obligation in this case, is to file for direct certification and to organize a campaign for the employees. If the board approves the certification, the union would than have the right to bargain with the employer on behalf of the employees within the bargaining unit and to enter into a collective agreement setting out the terms and conditions of the employment. The union also has the duty and responsibility to represent those employees that are in the bargaining unit in the manner which isn’t arbitrary, discriminating, or in bad faith whether or not employees have joined the union. The employers in this case, have the obligation and the right to mange their workplace as needed, however, it is their role to run the business