Case Study 2 1 Assignment
Case Study 2-1 Assignment
1.) Do you believe Fortin was the victim of antiunion discrimination by her employer? Why or why not?
No, I do not believe Fortin was the victim of antiunion discrimination by her employer. I believe that the employer should be allowed to punish Fortin for the work that was underperformed and not met to the expected standard. I believe that because this overlapped with Fortin’s involvement with the union events, this made her not have as much focus as should have on her job. Certain jobs require you to have more focus on solely the job but Fortin did not appear to focus exclusively on just her job she was focused on union actions as well. I believe too much was focused on her union attitude and spirit rather than just her job and the performance.
2.) Fortin’s supervisor had no knowledge of her union activity but laid her off on the basis of her poor performance evaluation. Give reasons why a court should uphold or override the supervisor’s decision.
I believe the court should uphold the supervisor’s decision. One of the reasons why I believe this is because the worker was not fired, if was fired then would be different situation. But because was laid off the court should uphold the supervisor’s decision. The given layoff was not a punishment of an action, it was more due to financial action. There is no sign showing that the employee, Fortin would or would not have been laid off irrespective of Fortin’s past history. This is why I believe that the court should uphold on the supervisor’s decision instead of overriding the supervisor’s decision.
3.) Explain why you think employers still resist unions 70 years after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act.
I believe there are some legitimate reasons why employers still resist unions 70 years after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. One reason why is employers believe that at times the unions impact the employees negatively by not motivating them enough to
1.) Do you believe Fortin was the victim of antiunion discrimination by her employer? Why or why not?
No, I do not believe Fortin was the victim of antiunion discrimination by her employer. I believe that the employer should be allowed to punish Fortin for the work that was underperformed and not met to the expected standard. I believe that because this overlapped with Fortin’s involvement with the union events, this made her not have as much focus as should have on her job. Certain jobs require you to have more focus on solely the job but Fortin did not appear to focus exclusively on just her job she was focused on union actions as well. I believe too much was focused on her union attitude and spirit rather than just her job and the performance.
2.) Fortin’s supervisor had no knowledge of her union activity but laid her off on the basis of her poor performance evaluation. Give reasons why a court should uphold or override the supervisor’s decision.
I believe the court should uphold the supervisor’s decision. One of the reasons why I believe this is because the worker was not fired, if was fired then would be different situation. But because was laid off the court should uphold the supervisor’s decision. The given layoff was not a punishment of an action, it was more due to financial action. There is no sign showing that the employee, Fortin would or would not have been laid off irrespective of Fortin’s past history. This is why I believe that the court should uphold on the supervisor’s decision instead of overriding the supervisor’s decision.
3.) Explain why you think employers still resist unions 70 years after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act.
I believe there are some legitimate reasons why employers still resist unions 70 years after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. One reason why is employers believe that at times the unions impact the employees negatively by not motivating them enough to