Murphy Oil USA, Incorporated V. National Labor Relations Board Analysis

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

29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (2015). The NLRA enables workers to engage in concerted action free from employer coercion, retaliation, and to bargain collectively with their employer. Id. See also Richard B. Freeman, What Can We Learn from the NLRA to Create Labor Law for the Twenty-First Century? 26 ABA J. LAB. & EMP. L. 327, 327 (2010). Freeman notes that “[t]he NLRA intended to replace the costly organizational fights that historically marred U.S. labor relations with a ‘laboratory conditions’ electoral process . . . .” Id. It also was meant to bolster the economy, facilitate labor peace, and create more jobs. Id.

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.

The National Labor Relations Board enforces the law by policing unfair labor practices committed by either labor or management. The Board also reviews questions concerning what issues are subject to negotiation under the law. The two most common allegations of unfair labor practices are that the employer has disciplined or discharged players for engaging in union activities and that the employer has refused to bargain in good faith.

The unfair labor practices include: interfering with employees as they engage in concerted acts, dominating or assisting a labor union, discriminating against an employee for engaging or not engaging in union activity, punishing an employee for filing charges against their employer with the National Labor Relations Board, and lastly the act requires that employers collectively bargain with employees unions in good faith (Cornell University Law School). The National Labor Relations Board was formed to ensure that these rules, and all those established by the Wagner Act are enforced. The board maintains its integrity by maintaining a five member board, which is appointed by the president, along with 33 regional directors (National Relations Labor

When speaking of unfair labor practices, it is imperative to note that, according to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, they include any attempts of an employer to prevent employees from organizing or creating their unions, restrain or interfere with their rights to support the existing union, affect their intentions and perceptions of union activities, threatening an employee with firing them or taking away their benefits predetermined by their competence if they choose to support the union (Legal Information Institute, n.d.; Noe et al.,

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

It is the obligation of the courts of this nation to enforce the laws of this nation, and illegal aliens have broken the law by their very presence in this nation, as well as the fact that the employer has breached both federal and state law in the hiring of those illegal aliens. Any activities that the illegal aliens engaged in such as labor union organizing were illegal for them to engage in, in the first place. Therefore this is a case of which all of the activities that the illegal aliens engaged in have no legal protection and merit due to their illegal status, and the fact that the employer illegally hired these individuals further exacerbates the case against the possibility of the court legally honoring any voluntary settlement agreement

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).

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

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

In the case, Morris v. Ernst & Young, LL, Ernst & Young required employees to sign employment contracts containing a “concert action waiver” which forced workers to arbitrate their claims against the company individually. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California previously ordered the claims to be arbitrated individually pursuant to their agreement. Shortly after, the plaintiffs’ filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit claiming their right to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection" had been violated.

From the case under study it is in line with the legal requirements that the TSA can file a legal petition for reinstatement (Cooper, 2012)., it is clear that the employer entered into this agreement knowingly and ready to abide by the rules and regulations only to deny doing as required by the law and refuse the reinstating of the employees The NLRB is guided by the National Labor Relations Act and has several responsibilities towards the employees. It is under the National Labor Relations Act that the employees who are not represented by a union get their rights protected. Some of the areas where they are assured of the protection are when employees wish to address their employer on pay, when the workers are discussing issues related to work beyond pay such as safety concerns, and when a worker speaks to the employer on behalf of other employees (Schwartz, 1983).

The National Labor Relations Board officially certified the union in a case settlement and ruled that the company violated the law by failing

The agreement bar precept gives that once an agreement is executed, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by and large does not allow a portrayal decision in the unit secured by the agreement until the agreement terminates up to a 3 year restrain. This govern