Campaign Threats or Implied Promise of Benefits
Did the employer statements constitute an unlawful threat or an unlawful promise in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA? Why or why not? Yes, the employer statements were unlawful. The NLRA guaranteed workers the right to join unions without fear of management reprisal. It created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to enforce this right and prohibited employers from committing unfair labor practices that might discourage organizing or prevent workers from negotiating a union contract.
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. Section 8 defines employer unfair labor practices. Employer interference, restraint, or coercion directed against union or collective activity (Section 8(a)(1)), was violated in this case study.
Threats, warnings, and orders to refrain from protected activities are forms of interference and coercion that violate Section 8(a)(1). Section 8 also prohibits union unfair labor practices, which include, according to legal construction, failure to provide fair representation to all members of the bargaining unit. The NLRA sets out general rights and obligation. Enforcing the Act in particular situations is the job of the NLRB. Did the questioning or statements by either supervisor Bates or Lofton constitute unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA?
Explain fully why or why not. As mentioned in the first question, yes it was unlawful interrogation. These supervisors were desperately trying to get the employees to vote against the union. In the event that they were successful at having all of their employees to vote against the union, some of them may have been unhappy and treated unfairly. Without representation, an employee will lose most battles against companies, unless they have solid proof of the employer’s wrongdoing.
In the case I notice how the supervisors both told employees about the reduction in their benefits. They were trying to use scare tactics because they know people need their benefits. The supervisors seem to want to make these promising decisions when in fact they should have been offering these things to the employees in the first place. It doesn’t make sense to try to make things better to keep from getting the union involved. The plant manager was trying to convince the employees that they are able to handle things without the union getting involved.
The manager tried to say that the unions are known for making broken promises, but it seems as if that is what the employer was doing. Develop a set of guidelines for supervisors and managers to follow when speaking to employees during a union organizing campaign. Employers should not threaten employees during an organizing campaign, but economic predictions regarding matters outside of the employer’s control, which are demonstrable, may be made. The employer should refrain from inflaming racial hatred.
They should listen to what the employee has to say and advise them that they are able to speak with anyone on the management staff without union representation. They should advise the employees of the benefits that they are currently enjoying; however there is no need to make a threat to take away any benefits or reduce the cost. In the event that an employee is being insubordinate, they will need to continue to follow company’s policies and guidelines; however they will need to make sure they have sufficient evidence to support their decision.
The NLRB prohibits employers from holding captive audience meetings 24 hours prior to the election, because insufficient time will exist for the union to respond; therefore if they decide to hold a meeting it will have to be within reasonable times. There should be a social media policy in place and such policy should be clear and understandable to the average employee. The NLRB’s rulings have in large part turned on the ambiguities of social media policies, and the possibility that employees may misunderstand the policies to bar protected activities. A social media policy must not be overbroad.
Policies should be narrowly drawn to address the employer’s legitimate policy objectives (for example, preventing the disclosure of the company’s proprietary information via social media or restricting the use of social media to engage in harassing conduct that would violate the company’s anti-discrimination and harassment policies). Employers will not like what the unions are trying to do, but this does not give them the right to talk down on the unions. When employers talk to employees during a union organizing campaign, they will need to be mindful of what they are saying.
Sometimes people talk too much and a supervisor or manager could cause an employer to have a lawsuit. Within the guidelines, I suggest the managers and supervisors to keep their negative thoughts to themselves. This will eliminate someone saying the wrong thing and will allow the employees to make a valid decision based on their own thoughts and opinions. Explain fully how the NLRB should rule in this case and why. The NLRB should rule that the employer is in violation because of the things the supervisors said. This may not be the first time or maybe it is; however it should not go unnoticed and that is what some would like to see.
In this case, the employees are being threatened about their benefits and wages. They are also making it seem as if they don’t need a union, when in fact they seem to really need someone there to represent the employees. The company also threatened two of the union supporters. When the supervisor advised that if they strike, there are more people waiting for their jobs; apparently that supervisor is not aware of the employee rights with the union behind them. The employer has to hold their jobs when they go on strike.
