Legal Case: Readypro Company V. Martinez

Hormel company had their BATNA in placed and their anchor points and also presented their solid reservation point, which allowed them to have the upper hand around the negotiation table. Even though Hormel company had their alternatives and had the ability to replace their workers there was no Justificability. They did not consider their reputation, assuming that in the future they will be seated at at table negotiating with another company. They also did not take into consideration that these workers had families that could cause the public to stop buying their products. Also they allowed the

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

A news release on the NLRB website demonstrates a real life example of a potential violation of the NLRA. The news release describes how well known aircraft manufacturer, the Boeing Company has decided to establish a second non-union production line for its 787 Dreamliner airplanes. This normally wouldn’t be an issue but the company’s main production line is in a union facility. Boeing stated that the reason they decided to use the non-union plant was because

The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements

For all responses to each assignment, provide the rationale for your answers and any assumptions that you are making.

A lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2016 by Fresno Police Sergeant Cervantes who is suing Fresno Police Department and three other detectives. He states workplace harassment and discrimination due to his Hispanic ethnicity. Further details state, “Sgt. Paul Cervantes accuses Sgt. Tim Tietjen and Detectives Brad Alcorn and Cary Phelps of smearing his reputation with false accusations and spreading rumors that he’s a dirty cop. Tietjen, Alcorn and Phelps are white.”(Lopez, para.2) Such accusations can lead to further tensions, costly legal battles, and government investigations. Sergeant Cervantes seeks unspecified damages, attorney fees for discrimination, retaliation, defamation and malicious prosecution. He also states he has been subjected to such discrimination and harassment since January 2008 to the present. Furthermore, it is not the first time Fresno Police Department has been sued for similar incidences. There is an ongoing problem in the department that needs to be resolve.

In the case of Martinez v. Houston McLane Company 2013, the plaintiff Shirley Martinez sustained an orbital fracture and corneal lacerations to the face after being struck by a ball hit during batting practice prior to the game. Martinez was there on behalf of the Houston Astros who provided donated tickets for members of the Texas National Guard. The seats where located in a part of the stadium that was not protected by the netting located behind home plate. That netting only protected 5,000 (of stadium capacity 41,000) seats located down the third and first base lines. At the time of the accident, Martinez was descending down a flight of stairs with a child in her arms to their seats. Upon reaching her seats she was notified by a Astros park employee that she was unable to have her stroller at the seat. In complying with the request, upon hearing screams of warnings of a inbound ball. Martinez wrapped up the child and shielded it an then struck in the face with the ball. She later sued the Houston Astros for negligence, which was rejected by a trial court. She would go on to appeal the ruling, in which time the state of Texas appeals courts. Noted that during trail, the courts refused to “impose a duty of care upon the stadium owners to screen all seats or to warn about balls hit out of play beyond screened areas.” Instead the courts stated that, “a stadium owner owes only a limited duty to spectators to protect them from baseballs hit into the stands.” An more

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.

If I was a member of NLRB I would have ruled this case in favor of ReadyPro because Martinez should have made ReadyPro give an exact amount of reimbursements and the exact date of the months that Martinez should be reimbursed back. ReadyPro should

Next, it is important to understand what the NLRB does and does not have jurisdiction over. The NLRB does not have jurisdiction over 6 types of labors: (1) governmental employees, (2) persons covered by the Railway Act, (3) independent contractors, (4) agricultural laborers, (5) household/domestic workers, and (6) employees who work for their spouse or parents (Reed, 631). Technically the NLRB has jurisdiction over everything else; however, the NLRB has a limited budget as well as time constraints and so must limit

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

The reason why this discharge violated the collective bargaining agreement is that Barrera Recycling Company did not comply with article XX Section 1, number 7 of the agreement that states, “Refusal to comply with plant rules, provided that such rules shall be posted in each department where they may be read by all employees and further shall…”. Barrera did not comply with this rule because they only posting the safety rules in Spanish locate in the lunchroom. Barrera Company sign reads, “Safety Shoes and Safety glasses should be worn at all times, Other safety measures as directed by the supervisor”,

The unions duty of fair representation as stated in (FLRA, 2016)is the obligation set forth in the second sentence of section 7114(a)(1) of the Statute is commonly referred to as an exclusive representative 's duty of fair representation. The Authority has interpreted this section to require an exclusive representative to represent the interests of all bargaining unit employees: 1) without discrimination; and 2) without regard to whether the employee is a dues paying member of the exclusive representative. The duty of fair representation is grounded in the principle that when a union attains the status of exclusive representative, it must use that power to fairly and equally represent all members of the unit. The union has met its obligation of fair representation when it has represented the employee fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination. In my opinion the union in the case cited did not meet its fair representation obligation due to not representing Green in good faith or without discrimination possibly on the grounds she is a non-dues paying employee. Therefore, her rights under the LMRA have been violated due to unfair labor practices. To reinforce my statement under the NLRB (NLRB, 2016) a union which represents you cannot refuse to process a grievance because you have criticized union officials or because you are not a member of the union. In the case cited Green was under the assumption when meeting with the Union Grievance committee she was participating

Defendant PepsiCo conducted a promotional campaign in Seattle, Washington from October 1995 to March 1996. The promotion, titled "Pepsi Stuff," attempted to persuade consumers into collecting numerous "Pepsi Points" in order to redeem them for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo. During this campaign, PepsiCo launched a promotional commercial intended for the ‘Pepsi Generation,' in order to gain the largest possible response to help push their campaign. One such commercial shows a well dressed teenager preparing for school simultaneously advertising a t-shirt, leather jacket and sunglasses for various reasonable point values. As the scene

Pharmed First Inc. is a widely successful chain pharmaceutical company with 85 drugstores located in Canada’s Atlantic provinces. George Brenner is one of the 6 regional managers and Angela MacFee is a store manager in a mall located in Dartmouth. One of MacFee’s loyal customers have purchased 9 packages of Diet Magic on September 2011 however wanted to return them on May 2012. Subsequently, MacFee reacted hastily and defensively, arguing with Johnston in spite of Pharmed First Inc. return policy (Figure 1). As a result, Johnston wrote a letter to Frank Chen, the president of Pharmed First Inc. and told Brenner to deal with it. He proposed that the company gives Johnston a $500 voucher and that MacFee apologizes. However, MacFee remained inflexible as she also challenged Brenner’s authority.