1. Evaluate the various claims made by the union and counterclaims made by the company regarding the charges of unfair labor practices. Which of the arguments are most persuasive? Evaluation of the Various Claims That Were Made By the Union: Organizations should have unions that will protect the rights of the employees creating an organizational environment where the employees are treated with respect by the employers. In this case scenario, the union filed charges against the company on the basis of the following; the repeated interrogations made by the employers of the company in respect to the activities of the union. The threatening of the employees by depriving them of their company benefits if they decided to elect the union. The other claim that was made by the union was threatening the employees of the union for refusing to reveal the identities of other employees who attended the union meeting. The union also stated that the corporation had no right informing the employees in the organization that they knew the operations of joining a union.
The promises that were made by the company to the employees to make payments for medical benefits was viewed by the union as an act geared towards discouraging the employees from joining the union (Conrad, 2012). Through this the union stated that the organization violated the union acts and wanted the corporation to stop. The union for the company asked the corporation to recognize the presence of the union and the bargaining power that they held. The organization would have to cease from these actions that are prohibiting the union from undertaking their roles. The union of the company filed charges against the company directed to the unfair practices that were committed to the employees of the company. This was aimed to ensure that the employees of the company were treated with respect and esteemed by the employers. Counterclaims Made By the Company:
The company defended its action by stating that it was unaware of any questions made to the employees with regard to the operations of the union. The granting of the improved medical benefits to the employees was termed to be part of the company annual practice and not a strategic move to lure the employees from joining the union. The corporation also termed the violation as minor actions that could not have influenced the decisions of the elections. The most persuasive argument of the two is the one held by the union. It is imperative to note that it is the subsequent actions of the company that influenced the election outcome (Why You, 2012). 2. Was the statement by Nord to Snow on the date of the representational election a threat or a legitimate prediction and personal opinion protected by the free speech provisions of the act? Why, or why not? Analysis of the Statement:
The morning of the representation election, on January 30, 1976, the statement that was made Leo Nord was indeed harassment to Cecil. This is by virtue of the conditions of the situation on what the statement was made and intent the statement was made. To state that the employees will be deprived of the privileges they had been allocated incase the union won was harassing them to make a decision that would be in favor of the company. The freedom of speech provision does not make it valid for the employee to state such comments (Conrad, 2012). 3. Was the company obligated to accept the union’s majority status claim on the basis of the authorization cards submitted by the union? Explain your answer. Accepting the union’s majority status:
The corporation in this scenario is validated to refuse the majority status that was held by the union on the basis of the signed cards based on the fact that they are not validated by the authorities- NLRB. The accepting of these cards as the measuring points of the majority status would give the union an added advantage that would not be valid. The verification process of the cards is very important since it will ensure that the employees were not coerced into signing the cards (Why You, 2012). 4. If the company is found to have violated the act, what would be the appropriate remedy: a bargaining order or a new election? Explain your answer. Appropriate Remedy for the Company:
In the case where the organization will be found to have violated the act, the use of the bargaining order law in this scenario will be appropriate. The bargaining order is an official order that is presented by the NLRB in the cases where the corporation or the employer is found guilty of unfair labor practices to the employees. Based on the fact that the use of the election did not materialize in the first case, the use of the bargaining order should follow suit. Through this the true determination of the employees’ feelings would be attained (Bargaining Order, 2012).
Ivancevich, J. M. (2010). Human resource management (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Bargaining Order Law and Legal Definition (2012) US Legal Retrieved January 4, 2012 from Http://Definitions.Uslegal.Com/B/Bargaining-Order/ Conrad, B (2012) Benefits from Labor Union Organizations Retrieved January 4, 2012 from Http://Www.Ehow.Com/List_6693235_Benefits-Labor-Union-Organizations.Html Why You Need a Union (2012) AFL-CIO Retrieved January 4, 2012 from Http://Www.Aflcio.Org/Joinaunion/Why/