Unfair Labor Court Case: Case Study

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

1. Did Wayne have an employment contract, either oral or written, with EcoCare? Why or why not?

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.

San Francisco has another wrongful termination suit in the news. A worker from Madera named Jason Pimentel claims that he was the victim of wrongful termination. Pimentel filed his complaint on June 13th against Velex, Inc., Nexius Solutions, Inc. Included in the complaint are a number of alleged violations. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

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.,

No, the employer’s statement does not violate Section 8(a) (1) of the LMRA. The employer was merely pointing out facts to its employees based on the leaflets that the union had distributed to the employees. The employer was ensuing that everyone knew exactly bargaining entailed and what was at stake; for instance wages, benefits are subject to negotiations and there was no guarantees if wages would increase or decrease or even if you retained your currents benefits, all was open for discussion and negotiation. At no time did the employer threaten the employees with reprisals if they voted for the union.

DISCUSSION: Kelli Brown (Interim Superintendent) and Nate Kamban (Transitional Assistant Superintendent) were present to discuss the union contract between The General Truck Drivers and Helper’s Union (Affiliated With The International Brotherhood of Teamsters) Local #92 and the Tuscarawas County Board of Developmental Disabilities. Mr. Kamban said they felt it would be best practice to match the Teamsters contract with the OAPSE contract that was passed several weeks ago. Commissioner Abbuhl asked if the time line matched up as well. Ms. Brown said it did (3 years). Ms. Brown also said they tried to match up the language in the contracts. Ms. Brown felt the negotiations went very well and was successful. She said everyone came to the table

Feere, Jon. “Ruling on Arizona's S.B. 1070 Mostly Right, but Wrong on Day Labor Law.” Center for Immigration Studies, cis.org/Feere/Ruling-Arizonas-SB-1070-Mostly-Right-Wrong-Day-Labor-Law. Accessed 28 July 2017.

Facts of the case: Imagine you are an HR manager and your boss and owner of the company, Bill, comes to you suspecting his assistant, Paige, is stealing money from the company. Bill would like a polygraph test conducted to see if Paige is stealing from the company. He would also like you to conduct electronic surveillance on Paige’s work e-mail for anything suspicious.

I am authorized to represent the Fulton County Self Insurance Plan in the above-referenced matter. I am writing at this time in supplement to an appeal filed by Benetech in the matter on 03/30/17. Both Benetech and the undersigned are authorized to represent Fulton Country Self Insurance Plan in this matter. I have enclosed letter of authorization herewith.

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

I think there is not AS MUCH child labor like before.But I think it’s because it would be child abusement and enslavement,therefore they could be charged with enslavement and child

On August 17 I participated in a telephone conference with Pat Quinn, Val, Mike Carreiro, Mark Lepizzera regarding whether there are grounds for an appeal of the arbitration award issued by Phil Dunn. As I understand it the purpose of the call was to get my insights as a Union attorney and to discuss the merits of any appeal. My opinion was that there are no grounds to appeal based on the legal standard in federal court and that, should the Union appeal, those are significant risks that it could be charged with the Employers attorney’s fees under rule 11.

The Fair Labor Standards Act creates reasonable pay and work values for service in America. It speaks mostly about law enforcement in two major areas, even though additional areas of distress are enclosed by the decree. Foremost, ultimately regulations come in when a worker does hard labor for more than 40 hours per week which is frequent in decree enforcement. It is associated to the subsequent distress which allocates with hours put in.

1. In the modern workplace, a host of things can contribute to the theft of time: nearly all of the technological gadgets that have been created for convenience and to make communication and entertainment easier can all cause an enormous theft of time. Cell phones can allow employees to surf the web, text with friends, and even shop for music and goods all in a discrete manner. The Internet itself, while a modern convenience which has literally changed the world offers too tempting an opportunity for most employees: they can read articles, engage in social networking, shop, play games, watch videos and a host of other enticing activities. Even not so modern issues, such as lateness, making personal phone calls or sneaking out early remain ways that employees can steal time from their employers. Consider these numbers: "If you pay an employee $15 an hour and that employee is stealing 2.8 days per year, it's costing you $396 per year considering a factor for payroll taxes and employee fringe benefits" (detroitbusinesslaw, 2010). However, if an employee is consistently stealing an hour or more per day by neglecting work and engaging in self-entertaining activities, this could easily add up to 5,000 per year for a company (detroitbusinesslaw, 2010). Thus, the only answer is to effectively manage the modern workplace and to address the problem head on. While no one likes to feel like their boss is an ogre, employees will respect an employer