Hrmd 620 (Mercedez Benz Dealership Vz. Tristan Jones
1070 Words5 Pages
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.” The NLRB and the courts have interpreted this statutory provision to mean that employees ( both union and non-unions members ) have the right to act together and discuss the terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees, to…show more content… His post was ill-mannered, insensitive and was additionally quite damaging to the image of the dealership. While I do support the rights of employees to free speech, I also support the right of employers to support the image of their company and in this case I do find Jones' termination an appropriate cause of action.
I guess my answer to the question lies on which of Jones posts prompted his termination from Mercedes- Benz.
4. What, if any, parts of the employer’s Employee Handbook violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA? Explain why you made the decision that you did.
For the most part, I find the employer’s Employee Handbook to be in accordance with NLRA regulations. The only section which I would say violated the Act and may be susceptible to potential unfair labor practice charges would be the courtesy rule. The courtesy ruled is defined as such
" Courtesy is the responsibility of every employee. Everyone is expected to be courteous, polite and friendly to our customers, vendors and suppliers, as well as to their fellow employees. No one should be disrespectful or use profanity or any other language which injures the image or reputation of the Dealership."
I find that the courtesy rule which prohibits certain types of conducts and statement violates the rights of employees to partake in the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law. According to the Jackson Lewis, employees have