Analysis Of The SGA Representation Campaign

Facts: In Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993), the Court was asked to decide a dispute between an employer (Davis) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Davis committed unfair labor practices, which Davis disputed. A union (Local 23) was attempting to organize a local at Davis. Several employees signed authorization cards for the union. Six of those employees were terminated in a mass layoff that impacted eight employees. Davis then fired or constructively fired three more employees who had filed authorization cards. Davis's chairman of the board then informed employees that he wanted them to sign authorizations with the Steelworkers, a competing union. However, Davis maintained that the employees were terminated for cause, not because they signed authorization cards for Local 23.

They are various employer tactics that interfere with employee’s “freedom of choice in being represented by their chosen advocates”. Unions may not try to influence management to discipline employees who did not join the union or refuse to represent employees because they are not union members. Some differences include that unions may not demand or require that an employer take action against an employer for any reason. A failure to pay union dues is an exception to this rule. Unions are also not allowed to force individuals to pay excessive initiation fees for union membership. In management, employers and unions may negotiate contract clauses requiring union membership as a condition of continued employment, also known as a union shop agreement. Also, employers may not refuse to bargain with an union over issues of pay, hours or other terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, unions may not influence employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights. Meanwhile, in management an employer may not interfere with an employee engaging in any activity protected by Section 7. (Fossum,

Members of management of a company whose employees are attempting to organize cannot, by law, join a union. Once preliminary organizing begins and during the election campaign, employers have certain rights and responsibilities, as mandated by the NLRB. The employer may lawfully limit campaign activities that occur on company property, if it has a legitimate reason to do so. Employers may also limit places where solicitation may occur, limit time during which solicitation may take place, and limit access to the workplace by any outsider. Employers may limit distribution of union

of the unions. Support for the union programs is not enforced. It 's agreed upon

Employers initially resisted unions as they were seen as a ‘tool of worker power’, and some countries even banned the groups all together (Baoill 2011). Although these restraints have been lifted, restrictions and guidelines have been put in place by government bodies to govern union activity; and employees internationally have the right to form unions (Baoill 2011).

As the study guide states, statute and case law have defined a series of unfair practices that employers and unions may not engage in during electioneering for a union certification election. Some unfair employer labor practices include 1) interference with union organizing efforts, 2) interference with employees' efforts for mutual aid, 3) tion of a labor organization, 4) support for a labor organization, 5) discrimination on the basis of participation in union activities, 6) discrimination due to employees' exercise of legal rights, and 7) refusing to bargain or refusing to bargain in good faith. Some unfair union labor practices include 1) restraint or coercion of employees or union members, 2) refusing to bargain or refusing to bargain in good faith, 3) strike-related conduct that may be illegal, 4) excessive dues, 5) featherbedding, and 6) coercion of employees to

Realizing the current business activities and productivity of GMFC, an employee of GMFC, Dave Neumeier has asked other human resources to get under a union so that the workers conditions in the workplace can be improved. Considering the existing business performance and profitability of GMFC, Dave Neumeier has suggested increasing the wage policy of the Custom Conveyer Division. At this particular point in time, as a union campaigner, it would be essential to understanding the specific need of the union. Identifying the main objective and attitude of a definite union campaign, it is important to understand the long process of the election campaign (Hung, 2004). In this particular case scenario, the design of the overall process must be led to set the foundation of the

History shows that there has been conflict of power within the workforce between union and management. This essay will discuss if management should have the right to determine whether a union should operate within their workplace. It is necessary first to discuss the roles of unions and management in the workplace and discuss both points of view on the power distribution between unions and management in the workplace.

Employment and labor law is in place to protect workers from their employers. I will discuss six laws that I believe either unduly interfere with the ability of an employer to operate successfully, strike an appropriate balance of interests among the stakeholders (employer, employee, union, public, etc.), or encourage an employer to adopt sound practices which, apart from compliance with legal requirements, also promote its own interests. The laws that unduly interfere with the ability of an employer to operate successfully are Right-to-Work laws and Immigration Nationality law. Companies have the right to operate their business of their own accord. Why is okay for states to pass laws to prevent employers from instituting union shop agreement? Gary Chartier writes, “When a legislature interferes with voluntary employment contracts, it infringes people’s freedom to bargain with their own labor and

Employers being able to create policies that coerced employees to step away from the unions and

Management can play a vital role in shaping their workplaces. A manager can invoke increases in co-operation and harmony amongst themselves and workers by addressing key issues that affect both groups. Management can facilitate this, for instance, by implementing plans that attempt to eliminate the issues that many workers face day-to-day such as monotony and fatigue (which have negative effects on productivity). Managers can reduce fatigue and monotony with job rotation and job enlargement, for example (Krahn, Lowe, Hughes, 2011 p. 264). Management can attempt to increase morale in their workplace by involving workers in decision-making processes normally closed off to managerial personnel; for instance, the addition of a new technology that a group of workers will eventually have to use. A manager could adopt a normative approach to managing their employees by conveying true, not fabricated, trust and interest in their employees and the work process as well (Krahn, Lowe, Hughes, 2011 p. 241). A manager could show this by doing the actual labour himself for a day or week or going out on the shop floor and asking meaningful questions. Since unions serve to represent the mass of workers they can work alongside management teams to better shape the workplace. The union,

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) started in July 1935 to protect the rights of employees, rather, they be union or nor-union employees (Pozgar, 2012). The employees are protected under the Act or may employ in bubble-like, rigorous goings-on in situations other than the customary union organizations and cooperative bargaining. The National Labor Relations Board regulates the employers from interfering with the rights of the employees to implement or organize and join with a groups that offers assists with collective bargaining purposes like organization union or joining one (Pozgar, 2012). The employer may not restrain, coerce or stop employees

In the U.S. labor relations, a group of employees who desire to bargain collectively rather than individually, are those who typically form a union (Dooley, 1957). This demonstrates to the employer that the majority of its employees support the union and the organizing process begins. First, employees cannot form a union without abiding by certain basic procedural steps and legal standards that are required. Decisions to vote against or for a union are based on factors such as satisfaction with their job, beliefs of the effectiveness of the union, and the culture or social environment in which the employee works. Next, when an employer exerts undue punishment to an employee who the employer suspects as being an illegal alien, this may be poor public policy. From a legal perspective, a recent federal court case, Singh v. Jutla & C.D. & R. Oil, Inc., 214 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2002) spoke to this issue. In this case, when the plaintiff Singh filed a wage claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the employer fired him and reported him to INS as an illegal alien (Labor Law, 1969). Likewise, the union certification process which was established by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935 was a victory for workers waning union representation upon its initial implementation. Workers could petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a determination made democratically of whether a majority of workers favored unionization (Labor Law, 1969). This effort

Therefore, it is critical that supervisors are sensitized to recognize subtle signs that can indicate an incipient union drive before the word “union” is ever uttered. Some of the early warning signs of union activity include: frequency of employee complaints or related inquiries on pay, benefits and disciplinary matters; employees forming in groups and/or visiting work areas they might not normally visit; argumentative questions being asked in meetings; exit interview information revealing that people are leaving to escape an unpleasant

Table 1 indicates the relationships between managerial de collectivization strategies and employee responses. Six types of workers resistance are found as join union, informal collective type responses, the covert challenge to management authority, change in the work process, covert disruption to do things differently and withdrawal behaviors. The empty cells in the table told that some of the employee lack of support system to organize resistance. The first strategies which are managerial anti-unionism were highly attacked by the employees in different sectors. This is the famous form of resistance observed. For example, Servo and Tellcorp share the same response. The workers were afraid to face the union directly because the union did not be approved in the firm. The workers were disbanded from joining a union. In TEC where 6 respondents had been interviewed, they must join the union without employer notice. Moreover, a worker from Mini Steels had to forgo his membership threatened by his company. He asked to do so as a condition to receive a compensation provided. Surprisingly, there are also employees who actively join a union said the reasons they joined mainly because of personal interest such as protection and as a matter of principle.