Human Resources Test Case

An employer may not interfere with its employee’s ability to communicate union messages or discriminate between union communications and non-union communications. Barry Marcks violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by barring union employees from using the employer’s e-mail system for union business.

The company after realizing that there was union organization in progress increased employee workload while reducing the workweek (called a stretch out). This is an implied financial threat by management that they controlled the workers, their income and their ability to have a job and their time off from the job. As long as employees showed sympathy to the union that management would make it hard on them. This is another potential violation of the ULP

2. Is there evidence of disparate impact against African Americans in the decisions that were made? On what basis did you arrive at this position? Illustrate how the “80 percent rule” can be used with the data in Exhibit 3.2.1 and whether there was a violation of this rule.

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

Upon investigation in to the claim of constructive discharge under the Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 my research found this claim to be irrelevant and unjustified. A constructive discharge happens when an employee is legally justified in claiming that he/she was forced to resign because the employer has made working conditions intolerable.

I believe the union did violate Title I, Section 101(a) of Landrum-Griffin Act since during the monthly meetings ”subjects such topics as union expenditures, salaries of officers, general complaints with particular employers, and various other operational matters” Under Title I, Section 101(a) “every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization” these meetings are hosted in English when nearly half of all union members do not understand English is unfair and not treating those who can not understand equally. Paul Sanchez has requested a translator that is not apart of the union so that the message is clear and with out opinions or objectiveness. He was denied the request by the union. A remedy to this would be to ensure all union members are able to participate and understand what is discussed during monthly

b. What did the Court decide with respect to the Applicants’ arguments on partners having to account to the firm and MDLA 415? In your answer, explain how the Court applied the relevant law cited the relevant facts and law cited in the judgment (include, for example, what rules applied).

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.

“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 collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection”.

Write an 8 to 10 page Case Analysis of the following article (which can be found in the Ashford Online ProQuest database):

High Availability – Redundant servers to support HA. Use HA to speed up restart process. Deployment pattern to reduce/eliminate planned outages from RBAC upgrades.

The Court held an employer could not be compelled by the Act to do so if other channels of communication are available that allows the union to reach the employees, provided that the employer does not discriminate against the union by allowing other distributions. The Supreme Court stated that so long as the circumstances of the employment do not "place the employees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them," respect for the employer 's property rights allow it to prohibit nonemployee access to its property. In doing so, the Court specifically differentiated the access rights of employees from those of nonemployees. The distinction [between employees and nonemployees] is one of substance. No restriction may be placed on the employees ' right to discuss self-organization among themselves unless the employer can demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to maintain production or discipline. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board, 324 U.S. 793, 803. But no such obligation is owed nonemployee organizers.” Ted Scott and Sara B. Kalis, Littler Mendelson, P.C.1.

As the last assignment, this is an integrative case. Please refer to all previous chapters that may be applicable. The case analysis is worth 60 points.

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

1. Consider Exhibit 10 on page 22 of the case; does it include the factors you consider most important in the selection process? Which factors would you be inclined to weight most heavily?