National Labor Relations Act Case Study

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.

All organizations are in business to make money, but there are rules that the employer and the employee must follow as well. Any influence that management and labor have over the organization should be equal. The “Landrum-Griffin Act also knows as the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.” Was passed in 1959 through U.S. Congress. This is the result of certain improper activities that was going on between labors, management, employers and certain union officials. Many of the officials in higher positions misused numerous labor funds as well as being involve in violent activities. This act regulated union affairs internally and also controlled the use of union funds.

It has been argued since the start of immigration whether or not aliens (undocumented or documented) should have the same equal rights as Americans when it comes to employment, education, and benefits in the United States. Despite what individuals believe or disbelieve, under certain acts, codes, laws, and the U.S. Constitution, all aliens have rights, regardless of their immigration status. In this paper I will discuss an overview of the court case, Patel v, Quality Inn South, which deals with an undocumented alien who was able to recover funds from his former employer. I will explain the acts that impacted the case, whether I agree or disagree with the outcome of the case, and my personal opinions of the case itself.

Cundal and Seaman discuss the many ways in which the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) is abused and the effects of this misuse on the workers. Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW) are working jobs that should be classified as long term positions, not short term. This incorrect classification affects a worker’s salary, healthcare plan, pension, vacation pay, and sick days. Cundal and Seaman also address the ways in which TFW are more susceptible to employer abuse than other workers. Temporary Foreign Workers must apply for a Labour Market Opinion (LMO) before switching employers, which can take up to five months; most workers cannot afford to live without a source of income for this length of time. This usually compels workers to keep serious issues private. Many workers are also uninformed about their basic rights, which often leaves them exposed to mistreatment or abuse by employers. Cundal, an immigration lawyer in Calgary and Seaman, a human rights and civil liberties researcher wrote an unbiased and fact based article using a wide variety of sources including articles, reports, and newsletters. Cundal and Seaman provided an extensive reference list in addition to footnotes to support their writing. The authors not only address the human rights issues faced by TFW’s, they also identify ways in which these issues can be resolved. Cundal and Seaman however, fail to provide information on how many TFW are affected by employer abuse and exploitation. This information is

Ewing, Walter. "The Many Facets Of Effective Immigration Reform." Society 47.2 (2010): 110. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 23 July 2016.

In her bottom-up article, Alexander mentions H2 workers, but only for the premise that “legal knowledge alone, even when paired with attorney access, is not enough to set the wheels of bottom-up workplace law enforcement into motion and send claims up the dispute resolution pyramid.” (at 1111). She also mentions guestworkers in her poultry workers article to illustrate the point that employers can shift their recruitment of guestworkers to avoid and punish those who have spoken or taken action against them. (at 376). In both articles, she focuses more on the authorized/unauthorized dichotomy and the effect of legal immigration status on claimsmaking rather than how different authorized immigrant situations affect claimsmaking.

Within the confines of this essay lies the argument against the mass amnesty of the millions of illegal immigrants. This conclusion came to fruition through the use of the many sources at the disposal of anybody who can use a database. The topics that will be touched upon will include the evidence regarding the diversion of tax money and the amount of tax revenue that would be returned to the United States by the newly welcomed migrants, the costs of educating their children, the influx of crime caused by these individuals, a review of constitutional law and the ways in which it is involved, and a surprising, yet humanitarian angle to the side against amnesty regarding the methods of detainment used by the current centers that are in place and the inhumane treatment contained within those walls. A fair but firm criticism of the opposition will be taken as the major points behind their argument are systematically taken apart and discussed in length, yet, near the end, those points will be shown in a light that will not validate, but show these points to noble in their aim and explain why these points, while noble, are incapable of producing the results that the opposition would like to obtain.

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.

In 1931, the California legislature barred any company doing business with the state from hiring “alien” workers on public jobs, forcing the removal of Mexicans from construction work, highway repair, school maintenance, and jobs in government buildings (Sanchez 211). At the same time, officials in Los Angeles

NLRA was considered to be the law that affected the relationship among the federal government and private enterprise; this measure considerably increased the government’s powers to arbitrate in labor relations. Prior to this law, employers had the emancipation to chastise, spy on, question for no reason and fire union members. Work stoppages commenced in the mid 1930’s (Gould, 1986), which included striking by factory and industrial occupational workers. By the time the strikes came to a halt, America had a more conservative Congress. This Congress led to balance the power between employers and unions. While the Wagner Act addressed only unfair labor practices by employers, it was added to the enactment of

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.

Throughout the Twentieth Century, the evolution of workers’ rights in the workplace has drastically evolved. Through the utilization of constitutional freedoms, workers across the nation came together to support the goal of receiving fair treatment from employers when it came to wages, work conditions, and benefits. However, this wasn’t achieved without great sacrifice from the average man as standing up for their rights was a brave act that usually resulted in consequences.

There is an assessed 11 million illegal aliens that are living United States, and this population is projected to upturn by 500,000 yearly. Once a year, about 1 million people that are considered to be aliens are detained when they make the attempt to come in the United States unlawfully. Even though most of these foreigners arrive the United States for financial chances and family reunification, or they are avoiding civil trouble and political unrest, some are offenders, and some could possibly be terrorists. Every one of them is disrupting the United States' immigration laws. With that said, this paper will involve the case study of immigration enforcement and the circumstances around the issue.

In the U.S. labor relations, a group of employees who desire to bargain collectively rather than individually, are those who typically form a union (Dooley, 1957). This demonstrates to the employer that the majority of its employees support the union and the organizing process begins. First, employees cannot form a union without abiding by certain basic procedural steps and legal standards that are required. Decisions to vote against or for a union are based on factors such as satisfaction with their job, beliefs of the effectiveness of the union, and the culture or social environment in which the employee works. Next, when an employer exerts undue punishment to an employee who the employer suspects as being an illegal alien, this may be poor public policy. From a legal perspective, a recent federal court case, Singh v. Jutla & C.D. & R. Oil, Inc., 214 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2002) spoke to this issue. In this case, when the plaintiff Singh filed a wage claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the employer fired him and reported him to INS as an illegal alien (Labor Law, 1969). Likewise, the union certification process which was established by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935 was a victory for workers waning union representation upon its initial implementation. Workers could petition the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a determination made democratically of whether a majority of workers favored unionization (Labor Law, 1969). This effort

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), also known as the Wagner Act, was enacted in Congress in 1935 and became one of the most important legacies of the New Deal. Prior to the passage of the NLRA, employers had been free to spy on, interrogate, discipline, discharge, and blacklist union members. Reversing years of federal opposition, the statute guaranteed the right of employees to organize labor unions, to engage in collective bargaining, and to take part in strikes. The act also created a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to arbitrate deadlocked labor-management disputes, guarantee democratic union elections, and penalize unfair labor practices by employers. The law applied to all employees involved in the interstate