Case Study

910 Words4 Pages
1. Do these employer statements constitute an unlawful threat in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA? Why or why not? In response to the statements provided by the employer, it is observed that there is some degree of coercion and threatening accusations made in these statements, based upon Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA. These statements constitute a threat because they demonstrate that the company was making attempts to influence employees regarding the union vote by making viable threats regarding existing benefit packages. This is an important consideration to make because it represents a means by which the organization sought to overcome the influence of the union by attempting to dissuade employees from voting one way regarding the vote. 2. Do the employer statements constitute an unlawful promise of benefits in violation of Section 8(a) (1) or the act? Why or why not? The statements made by the employer appear to coincide with an unlawful promise of benefits, and therefore, are unacceptable in relation to the act. The concept of “positive coercion” is addressed in the case study, and these actions directly influence the manner in which employees may view the union and its possible entrance into the organization. In this context, the company does not possess a right to actively or even passively coerce employees into making a decision on one side or another, as this should be an independent decision that is left in the hands of employees without any type of influence. This is an important factor in demonstrating the value that is placed upon organizations and their ability to coerce employees to make decisions in one way or another, and how this type of behavior is unacceptable in all cases. 3. Did the questioning or statements by either supervisor Bates or supervisor Lofton constitute unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the

More about Case Study

Open Document