Fortin Labor Case

801 Words4 Pages
Amie Kitchen Case 1-1 OL 318 March 9, 2010 1. Fortin was the victim of antiunion discrimination. She worked for the company for many years and was put in charge of the Metro-Dade account. Fortin increased sales on this account and was recognized by the company for this in 1994 prior to June 1st. At this time the company acknowledged that Fortin was an excellent work with a successful track record for the eight years she had been with the company. On June 1st, 1994 Fortin testified on the union’s behalf at a hearing. She was also was quoted in the paper making a pro union statement. When returning to work she received her very first warning in eight years on the job. She was issued a total of four warnings in the month of June. Instead of helping fix the issues the company made it harder for Fortin to do her job. By removing her direct line and taking away special deliveries to her customers the company made it an inconvenient for her customers to reach her and receive their delivers. The company put obstacles in Fortin’s way so her sales would drop due to their direct actions. She was also disciplined for being away from her work station because she was on the floor of the warehouse. She claimed she needed to be on the floor because of her job and had done this numerous times before. She was only restricted after the company learned of her union support. The company did not review her day to day actions and make changes so she would not have to visit the warehouse, which could have solved the problem. Instead the company disciplined yet not the warehouse employees she was speaking with. The company took no measures to help fix the poor performance of an excellent employee whose work declined at a rapid pace instead they made changes to her work to that would directly cause her performance to suffer. Fortin was praised for her work only months before

More about Fortin Labor Case

Open Document