Employee Rights Protected From Employer Discrimination

1. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act specifies that “employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Describe how the NLRB has interpreted the phrase “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”

1. What is the legal issue in this case? Linda Dillon appealed her case against her employer, Champion Jogbra, on the grounds of wrongful termination. The company’s progressive policy for disciplinary action was not applied. Therefore, Dillon makes her claim that her at will status was modified according to the employee handbook and practices. Employee’s handbook should be written clearly and reviewed by legal experts (Walsh, 2010). Champion Jogbra countered that Dillon was an at-will employee and she could be terminated at any time. Dillon also, argues against that the

Determining the legality of picketing against a neutral employer can be tricky. The NLRA plays a limited role in picketing as the states have a major role in legal regulation of picketing. States can put a complete ban on picketing due to the violence only when justified as “the fear generated by past violence would survive even though future picketing might be wholly peaceful” (Cihon & Castagnera, 2015).

There are several million undocumented immigrants employed in the United States (Burton, 2015). Even though the labor market has changed, the original National Labor Relations Act has not. The NLRA provide legal protection to employees to not be terminated for participate in organizing a union. NLRA created a blanket enforcement of NLBA rights equal for undocumented workers and U.S. citizens (Zdravecky & Hass, 2014). The law does not expressly detail terms who is considered an employee of an employer. The original intent of the law was to provide protection to anyone regularly employed in the U.S. The actions of the NLRA board makes it clear the board felt that undocumented workers deserved equal protection for the NLRA. If employer was

The central principle against protection for union officers is grounded in the statutory language of § 101(a) of the LMRDA, which states that “every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges.” 29 U.S.C. § 411. Section 101(a)(1) explicitly contains the phrases “every member” and “all members” with no direct reference to officers. As noted in Sheridan v. Carpenters, 50 LRRM 2637 (3rd Cir. 1962), legislative history shows that Congress did not intend to protect union officials. Although the original Senate bill contained the phrase “the right of any member or officer”, the final version omitted the word officers and “speaks only of the right of members” (p. 2641). The court held that this demonstrates congressional

Employees started to exchange their frustration about Cruz-Moore’s criticism. A director of HUB soon followed up with the Facebook post. Cruz-Moore commented on Cole-Rivera’s post “stop with your lies about me”, She then brought the entire Facebook exchange to the executive director’s attention (O'Brien, C. N. 2013). The employees who were involved were terminated for bulling and harassment of Cruz-Moore. Cruz-Moore had suffered a heart attack as a result of this incident. The NLRB ruled that HUB violated the NLRA by discharging the five employees, because the employees were engaged in protected concerted activities for the “purpose of mutual aid or protection” under Section 7.167 (O'Brien, C. N. 2013). Employers were ordered to reinstate employees with back pay because the discharges were motivated by the employee’s protected concerted activity.

After being terminated, Martinez filed an unfair labor practice complaint alleging that the Company’s confidentially agreement was overly broad and unlawfully restricting her rights under section 7 of the LMRA. Martinez reasoning for doing that is because she has the right to disagree with the union and voice her opinion by disclosing the terms of her agreement and involving other parties. She has the right to be able to disclose all the agreements with the contract to the LMRA. The fact that the agreement was so broadly worded results in Martinez not being able to state the exact amounts she would make within this case. If I were a member of the NLRB I would rule this case in favor of the ReadyPro Company. Only because if I was Martinez I would have read over the confidentially agreement and noticed how broad it was and made them change it and add exact amounts in order for me to work there. Martinez didn’t do that, she signed and agreed to obey the contract, therefore if she did step out of her agreement it would result in her being terminated. Lastly, I would rules that ReadyPro to reimburse Martinez the full $15 each day she used her equipment and no longer allow her back into the

The NLRA is entrusted by the NLB, which protects collective bargaining in the private sector. Some of the activities of the NLRB is to primarily conduct elections to determine whether or not employees want union representation, and to investigate and relieve practices that are unfair by employers and unions (Joe Twarog, 2005). When a

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), (main aspect of law for the collective bargaining) is

Labor Management Relations Act’s goal is to require unions and employers with bargaining relationships to meet with each other and bargain in good faith. Employers have a legal duty to bargain in good faith with their employees' representative and to sign any collective bargaining agreement that has been reached (Walsh, 2013).The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) prescribes the rules for the collective bargaining process. Collective bargaining purpose is to bargain in good faith is an obligation to participate actively in the deliberations so as to indicate a present intention to find a basis for agreement (Cox, 1958). This implies both an open mind and a sincere desire to reach an agreement as well as a sincere effort to reach a common ground.

Furthermore, Section 8 of the LMRA, stipulates that it is an unfair labor practice by the employer; for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or force employees in the exercise of the rights, guaranteed in section 157 (Galiatsos, 2015). Thus, Section 8 specifically disallows the discharge, constructive discharge, layoff, suspension and failure to recall from layoff, demote, discipline, or take any adverse action against the employee, due to their concerted activities. Concerted activities can be viewed as protection available

The NLRA gives employees the right “to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” The NLRA prohibits employers from committing what it defines as unfair labor practices (“ULP.”) This Act defines five categories of unfair labor practices that an employer is prohibited from committing: (1) “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed” by the NLRA, (2) “to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it,” (3) “by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization,” (4) “to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this Act,” (5) “to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.” An employer can commit an unfair labor practice regardless of whether there is already a union in place within the workplace, when employees are trying to unionize, or even when employees are joining together to protect their rights without a

The legal issue surrounding the plaintiffs’ Janvier et al. deals with negligence in the workplace resulting in harm. Negligence is a form of tort law. The purpose of tort law is to compensate victims. Typically in order to claim negligence, the plaintiff must prove four things: duty of care, standard of care, that the plaintiff suffered injury or damage, and the defendants conduct caused injury to the plaintiff. Despite this claim of negligence, according to WCB legislation, the lawsuit filed by these plaintiffs is not actionable in court. As an employer worker relationship exists, the plaintiffs are not allowed to bring legal action upon their employer for damages. The WCB legislation prevents workers from suing their employers. In

economy.” (National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 1990) This act helps private employees from the fear of retaliation for engaging in conversations which may include complaining about work conditions, supervisors, the job, and the organization. This in my opinion was a great early step especially in the private sector to help those being manipulated by their overlords. The NLRA does not cover public employees. Private employees must look to their unions, employment contracts, and other statues that help them. The First amendment does not protect them so they must look to other routes.

The Landrum-Griffin Act was passed by President Dwight Eisenhower and was known as the new Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. This amended the Taft-Hartley Act in several different ways. One way that it amended it was in the way that state courts and labor relations regulated by the state were given jurisdiction over declined cases under jurisdictional standards. The other was that secondary boycotts were more strict as well as agreements known as “Hot Cargo Agreements.” were banned. Another way that it also amended the Taft-Hartley Act was that it protected employees’ and their union membership rights from the possibility of unfair practices by unions. Three examples of unfair labor practices, according to the NLRB.gov, are “Interfering with an employee’s right to organize, join, or assist a union, retaliating against an employee for filing a charge with, or giving a testimony to, the NLRB, and dominating or providing illegal assistance of support to a labor union.” (https://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/our-history/1959-landrum-griffin-act). When an employer goes and tries to interfere with the act of organizing or employees joining a union, they are violating certain labor practices. The employer must treat the conversation of unions as an unrelated matter to work. The work place cannot retaliate against an employee for grievances to the National Labor Relations Board. The employer can face serious consequences if they are