Electromation Vs Nlb Case Study

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), in 1992 changed how nonunion employees and managers could gather and organize employee committees with the case Electromation, Inc. vs NLRB. With this act organizations must be careful with creating employee committees that could otherwise be deemed unlawful. They must avoid allowing any of the management team to direct or influence the work of the committee, as well as members of the committee are not allowed to give the impression that they represent the views of their fellow coworkers. Both of these examples took place in the Electromation, Inc. vx NLRB case and are now considered infringements on the NLRA and are deemed unlawful. This act forced managers and employees to either forgo employee and
vs NLRB stemmed from the formation of an employee based committee inside a small company of 200 employees. The reason for the creation of the employee based committee was due to financial problems they were experiencing in the late 1980s that caused them to decide on the elimination of the employee attendance bonus policy and the wage increase for the coming year. This policy change did not sit well with the employees who responded with a petition objecting to the change in company policy. After the president met with his supervisor staff to discuss the concerns and complaints of the employees, he realized that he would need employee participation in order to resolve or come to a mutual agreement regarding the issues at hand. In response, Electromation’s management team created five action committees: Absenteeism/infractions, No-smoking policy, Communication network, Pay progression for premium positions, and the Attendance bonus program. The committees were comprised of a selected number of employees that were chosen out of a group of volunteers. Electromation’s management team also delegated the number of employees in each committee and only allowed each chosen employee to be a part of only one of the five committees. According to the source these committees met on a weekly basis. The basis of each of the committees was for the members to collaborate together various ideas from their fellow coworkers that could be incorporated
According to Labor Law (2015), “Under the NLRA, sections 2(5) and 8(A)(2), employers are forbidden to create employer dominated company unions” (p.3). The Electromation’s management team went against this act and created committees that were seen as "labor organization" for the reason that the five groups made proposals on behalf of all employees concerning various employee issues, concerns and proposals. The issues and proposals were brought before Electromation’s management team and were discussed and then either accepted or rejected by management. The problem with this approach was that the company had unlawfully dominated the committee allowing their management to create and announced the meeting of the committee (source). The management team also determined the structure and function of the committee, allowing management to have the power to veto ideas, select the members, chose the topics to discuss, and allowed the meetings to be held on site during work hours (CCH Incorporated, 1999). Electromation’s management team also provided support to the group through supplies and funds to help the committee organize. Because of the countless errors that Electromation’s management team made regarding their action committees, they were forced to