Sheridan V. Carpenters: A Case Study

In 1947 it was revised to help better protect employees as well as employers. The revision stated that employees and managers must bargain “in good faith” with each other, and illegalized wild cat strikes, (refusing to work under a valid contract). These rights help employees as well as employers to be treated fairly. Forcing employees and employers to work together as a team can increase their understanding of where each side is coming from, as well as making it easier to compromise. The act also prevented businesses from becoming “closed shops,” (places where only union members were hired.) and prevented members from forcing others to join a union. Employees were also given the option to hold elections to certify and decertify unions. Employers were given the freedom to voice any concerns they had over unions so long as they did not interfere with the organization of unions. The revised act also gives the president the power to call off strikes in the event that it becomes a national emergency. A board may be hired to examine the situation of the strike so that the president may better understand why the situation has not been resolved. The president can then put an injunction on the strike; if a decision is not reached, the injunction can be extended.

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

Labor unions represent workers interests and the collective bargaining process provides a way to manage the conflict (Noe, 2003). More than ever, union employees have come to see unionizing as a way to achieve an

6. Name ten examples of actions that may be lead to disciplinary action up to and including withdrawal/termination.

This law is also known as the Wagner Act, named for Senator Robert F. Wagner, the man who championed it. In a nutshell this law protects employees’ rights to form and participate in labor unions. The book, Labor Relations: Striking a Balance identifies the central provisions of the Act. These provisions include the establishment of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which answers representation questions and settles unfair labor practice claims. The act gives workers the right to form unions and bargain collectively. It identifies five unfair labor practices and “establishes exclusive representation for unions that have majority support and grants them rights of collective bargaining over wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment” (Budd, 2010, pp. 119-121). The law also made it illegal for companies to fire employees for forming or joining unions and prohibited company managed unions.

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

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.

The changes brought up labor unions in the United States over recent history has brought about a movement. This specific movement has shaped the way that employees and workers are treated in the workforce,and how they maintain their quality of life through this employment. Many people think that the labor unions’ influence has created a power struggle between management and union leaders. In many cases this can be considered true, as there have been countless feuds between management teams and labor unions, especially in recent history. In today’s times, on the one hand, some people believe the existence of unions are a necessity in order to ensure and promote employee freedom; while on the other hand some people view labor unions as just another problem in the line of employee success.

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.

7 The right of employees to strike in support of their bargaining demands is protected by

The First Amendment to the Constitution says that “Congress shall not make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” This was put in the constitution to protect our right to speak against law. Non-members who are disagree to involve in agency, pay fees, and support the union required to pay mandatory fees that is automatically taking out from their paychecks like who are the member who are agreed to support the union. But, the fees weren’t directly used for public employees but political bargaining. The choice of opting-out wasn’t valid when union takes some money and their choice of speech is ignored by paying union fees and forcefully become

They are various employer tactics that interfere with employee’s “freedom of choice in being represented by their chosen advocates”. Unions may not try to influence management to discipline employees who did not join the union or refuse to represent employees because they are not union members. Some differences include that unions may not demand or require that an employer take action against an employer for any reason. A failure to pay union dues is an exception to this rule. Unions are also not allowed to force individuals to pay excessive initiation fees for union membership. In management, employers and unions may negotiate contract clauses requiring union membership as a condition of continued employment, also known as a union shop agreement. Also, employers may not refuse to bargain with an union over issues of pay, hours or other terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, unions may not influence employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights. Meanwhile, in management an employer may not interfere with an employee engaging in any activity protected by Section 7. (Fossum,

The Supreme Court does a great deal for our nation today. Everyday they work on ongoing cases, making some very difficult decisions. One of these cases is the case of Timothy Carpenter, who believes it was unconstitutional when the FBI searched his cell phone records without a warrant.

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.

I feel that developing a relationship can only be beneficial to the company and the union. It will take some time to work on this relationship with union management, so we are looking at this action being somewhat long-term. I did find an article published by Gallup online, “Unions and Management: A Blissful Marriage? by Teresa Tschida,” that discusses how unions and management can come together in the right way that I feel can be used to our benefit. With this relationship, our company will be able to go to the union leaders with any issues we have with employees, such as when an employee is performing poorly, and work through the issues.(citation) I feel that we should be directly reporting to the union on why an individual was fired from our company, instead of the employee reporting to them information that could be false. Since the union’s main priority is to protect employees and improve their working conditions, our close relationship with them will help to show our employees that we are committed to them as well. Our company also needs to be more up to date on the policies that the union has and what they see as acceptable reasons to fire an employee to hopefully keep from strikes or walk-outs. Overall, working closer with the union management can help to decrease the number of walkouts and/or strikes, show our employees that we care, and cause less confusion and