978-0078023859 Chapter 22 Solution Manual Part 1

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 9
subject Words 3438
subject Authors Daniel Cahoy, Marisa Pagnattaro

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
Chapter 22 - LaborManagement Relationship
22-1
Chapter 22
LaborManagement Relationship
Learning Objectives
The focus shifts to examine the right of workers to unionize and to the law of labor-
management relations. In this chapter, students will examine, from a chronological
perspective, Congresss various attempts to protect employees and to equalize the bargaining
power of management and labor to enable collective bargaining. The National Labor
Relations Board is the prime regulatory force in this area, and the chapter should familiarize
the students with both its strengths and weaknesses. This chapter will examine conduct that
constitutes unfair labor practices by both employers and labor unions. Students should
recognize that it is easy for either labor or management to commit an unfair labor practice.
They should also be aware of the sanctions that are imposed for unfair labor practices.
References
Brody, D., Labor Embattled: History, Power, Rights. University of Illinois Press
(2005).
Dannin, E., Taking Back the Workers Law: How to Fight the Assault on Labor
Rights. ILR Press (2006).
Freeman, R., J. Hersch, and L. Mishel, Emerging Labor Market Institutions for the
Twenty-First Century. University of Chicago Press (2005).
Gorman, R. and M. Finkin, Gorman and Finkins Hornbook on Labor Law
Unionization and Collective Bargaining, 2nd edition. West Publishing (2004).
Law, G.T., A Guide to Sources of Information on the National Labor Relations Board.
Routledge (2002).
Lambert, J., If the Workers Took a Notion: The Right to Strike and American
Political Development. ILR Press (2005).
Leslie, D.L., Labor Law in a Nutshell, 4th ed. West Group (2000).
Website: http://www.nlrb.gov
Teaching Outline
I. Labor Laws (LO 22-1)
Emphasize:
page-pf2
Chapter 22 - LaborManagement Relationship
22-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution
in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
The need to unionize employees and the composition of a union.
The historical data showing the workforce that is unionized.
Table 22.1—”Statistics on Union Membership
Sidebar 22.1—”2010 Statistics on Union Membership
Table 22.2—”Federal Laws Governing Labor-Management Relations
A. Laws Before 1935 (LO 22-2)
Emphasize:
Congresss view on management in a labormanagement relationship.
The repercussions of trying to unionize in the last two centuries.
The three prolabor acts passed by the congress that were meant to curb employer
mistreatment of employees.
The Clayton Act
Emphasize:
That the first federal statue of any importance to the labor movement is the
Clayton Act of 1914.
That antitrust laws do not apply to labor unions that are carrying out legitimate
labor activities such as striking and picketing.
Case for Discussion:
1. A union and several employers negotiated a collective-bargaining agreement
which restricted the operating hours of food-store meat departments in Chicago,
Illinois, to 9:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Jewel Tea brought suit, alleging that a
prepackaged, self-service system of marketing meat eliminated the need to have
a butcher on duty at all times; therefore, the limitation on operating hours was an
unreasonable restraint of trade. The defendants claimed that the controversy was
exempt from the antitrust laws.
Issue: Does the antitrust laws apply?
Cutters, and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, et al. v. Jewel Tea
Company, Inc., 85 S.Ct. 1596 (1965).
page-pf3
Chapter 22 - LaborManagement Relationship
22-3
The Railway Labor Act
Explain:
That In 1926, Congress enacted the Railway Labor Act to encourage collective
bargaining in the railroad industry.
That the National Mediation Board, a three member board, that has a bargaining
representative for any bargaining unit of employees in the railway or air transport
industries.
That if no agreement is reached, then the process moves onto arbitration.
Therefore, after a sixty day period, lockouts by management and strikes by
workers become legal under this law.
Cases for Discussion:
1. Norris was terminated by Hawaiian Airlines as an aircraft mechanic. Norris had
refused to sign a maintenance record on a plane he felt was unsafe to fly. He
reported his concerns to the Federal Aviation Administration. After being fired,
Norris filed a wrongful discharge suit in the Hawaiian state courts. Hawaiian
Airlines moved to dismiss Norriss complaint on the grounds that the Railway
Labor Act preempted this state-based action and required arbitration of this
dispute.
Issue: Does the Railway Act preempt the Hawaiian-based lawsuit and require
that Norris submit his grievance to arbitration?
Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 114 S.Ct. 2239 (1994).
2. TWA informed its flight attendants before and during a strike that any vacancies
created by the strike would be filled through hiring of permanent replacements,
page-pf4
Chapter 22 - LaborManagement Relationship
22-4
work.
Issue: Can striking employees be permanently replaced?
Attendants, 109 S.Ct. 1358 (1989).
3. A collective-bargaining agreement required that all of the airlines clerical
employees join the union or pay agency fees equal to members dues. Plaintiffs
objected to the use of their compelled dues or fees for certain union activities.
The union adopted a rebate program under which objecting employees were
ultimately reimbursed for their shares of political expenditures but collected from
objecting employees for expenses for (1) the national unions quadrennial Grand
Lodge convention, (2) litigation not involving the negotiation of agreements or
settlements of grievances, (3) union publications, (4) social activities, and (5)
general organizing efforts.
Issue: May the members dues be used for these purposes?
S.S. Clerks, 104 S.Ct. 1883 (1984).
The Norris-LaGuardia Act
Emphasize:
That the Norris-LaGuardia Act attempts to limit the power of the federal courts
to issue injunctions.
That although the act does greatly restrict state courts from issuing injunctions, it
does not prohibit them altogether.
page-pf5
22-5
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution
in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Case for Discussion:
1. A Union, which represents railroad employees nationwide, had a dispute over
renewal of a collective-bargaining agreement with a small railroad that is a
subsidiary of a large railroad. After exhausting the settlement procedures mandated
by RLA, the Union instituted a lawful strike against the parent railroads. The Union
extended its picketing to other railroads with which the parent interchanged traffic.
Issue: Can the court enjoin this secondary picketing?
II. The Wagner Act (LO 22-3)
Emphasize:
The historical time frame in which the Wagner Act was passed.
Section 7 rights of employees and what it states.
Sidebar 22.2—“Three Pro-Union Executive Orders
Case for Discussion:
1. A union refused to work overtime during negotiations for renewal of a contract. The
employer filed a complaint with a state employment relations commission that entered
a cease and desist order. The state courts upheld the order.
Issue: Does the state have jurisdiction over this labor dispute?
A. The National Labor Relations Board
Emphasize:
That the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) operates as an independent
agency of the U.S. government.
page-pf6
Chapter 22 - LaborManagement Relationship
22-6
The NLRBs authority to certify unions as the collective bargaining representative
of employees.
NLRB Organization
Describe:
The organization and functions of the NLRB and the role of the general counsel
of the board.
Administrative law judges are responsible for the initial conduct of hearings in
unfair labor practice cases.
Jurisdiction
Explain:
The category of personnel who are exempted from NLRB.
That the NLRB cannot exercise its powers over all business because it has a
limited budget and time constraints.
Sidebar 22.3—”Are College Football Players Employees?
Case 22.1Hispanics United Of Buffalo, Inc. and Carlos Ortiz
Quasi-Judicial Authority
Describe:
The broad scope that an order by the NLRB can have to remedy the effects of an
unfair labor practice after it finds that one has occurred.
That the NLRB has the power to order whatever action is necessary to correct the
unlawful practice.
Cases for Discussion:
1. The NLRB adopted a general rule that there would be eight and only eight
defined employee units for collective bargaining in acute case hospitals. The
American Hospital Assn. contended that the law requires the NLRB to make a
separate bargaining unit determination in each case and to avoid proliferation of
units.
Issue: Is the NLRB rule valid?
page-pf7
Chapter 22 - LaborManagement Relationship
22-7
appropriateness of a bargaining unit, the Board shall resolve the dispute. In doing
so, the Board is entitled to rely on rules that it has developed to resolve certain
issues of general applicability. The rule is not arbitrary and capricious. American
Hospital Assn. v. NLRB, 111 S.Ct. 1539 (1991).
2. An action was instituted by a union for relief against certain prohibitions
contained in the New Jersey Casino Control Act.
Issue: Is the New Jersey act applicable?
v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders, 104 S.Ct. 3179 (1984).
3. An employer was sued for misrepresentation and breach of contract by strike
replacements who were displaced by reinstated strikers. The strike replacements
had been offered and accepted jobs on a permanent basis and had been assured
that they would not be fired to accommodate returning strikers.
Issue: Do the strike replacements have a cause of action?
B. Certification of Unions
Emphasize:
That an employer may voluntarily recognize that its workers want to have a certain
labor union represent them.
More common is the NLRBs certification of a union as the bargaining agent for a
group of employees.
Sidebar 22.4—“Limitation on NLRBs Remedies
Certification Elections
Emphasize:
Elections are by secret ballot and are supervised by the NLRB.
The procedures for filing for both certifying and decertifying elections.
That unequivocal cards may be substituted for an election but ambiguous ones
page-pf8
Chapter 22 - LaborManagement Relationship
22-8
may not.
Cases for Discussion:
1. Auciello Iron Works had 23 production and maintenance employees. After a
union election in 1977, the NLRB certified Shopmens Local No. 501, a/w
25, 1988. Negotiations for a new one were unsuccessful throughout September
and October 1988. When Auciello and the Union had not made a new contract by
October 1988, the employees went on strike. Negotiations continued and on
November 17, 1988, Auciello presented the Union with a complete contract
proposal. On November 18, 1988, the picketing stopped, and nine days later, on a
Sunday evening, the Union telegraphed its acceptance of the outstanding offer.
The very next day, however, Auciello told the Union that it doubted that a
majority of the bargaining units employees supported the Union, and for that
reason disavowed the collective-bargaining agreement and denied it had any duty
to continue negotiating. Auciello traced its doubt to knowledge acquired before
the Union accepted the contract offer, including the facts that 9 employees had
crossed the picket line, that 13 employees had given it signed forms indicating
their resignation from the Union, and that 16 had expressed dissatisfaction with
the Union. In January 1989, the NLRBs General Counsel issued an
administrative complaint charging Auciello with violation of §§ 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the NLRA. An administrative law judge found that a contract existed between
the parties and that Auciellos withdrawal from it violated the Act. The Board
affirmed the administrative law judges decision; it treated Auciellos claim of
good-faith doubt as irrelevant and ordered Auciello to reduce the collective-
bargaining agreement to a formal written instrument. The Court of Appeals
enforced the Boards order.
Issue: Assuming Auciello has good-faith reasons to question its employees
support of the union, can Auciello refuse to bargain with the union under the
terms of a collective bargaining agreement?
page-pf9
22-9
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution
in any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
recognizes that an employee might also be paid by a union for work done on
behalf of the union. Auciello is obligated to bargain with the union during the
term of a collective-bargaining agreement. Since Auciello refused to bargain, it
committed an unfair labor practice. Auciello Iron Works, Inc. v. Labor Relations
Board, 116 S.Ct. 1754 (1996).
2. Sterlingwale laid off all of its production employees in February 1982, and went
out of business in late summer. Fall River acquired Sterlingwales plant, real
property, equipment, and some of its remaining inventory, and began operating
out of Sterlingwales former facilities and hiring employees in September 1982.
In October 1982, the union that had represented Sterlingwales production and
maintenance employees for almost thirty years requested Fall River to recognize
it as the bargaining agent for its employees and begin collective bargaining. Fall
River refused even though a majority of its employees were ex-Sterlingwale
employees.
Issue: Is Fall River obligated to bargain with the union?
Labor Relations Board, 107 S.Ct. 2225 (1987).
3. The members of an independent local union voted to affiliate with an
international union. The employer refused to bargain with the new entity. The
NLRB decided that because non-union employees were not allowed to vote in
the affiliation election, the election did not meet minimal due process standards
and was therefore invalid.
Issue: Did the NLRB exceed its authority?
Employees, 106 S.Ct. 1007 (1986).
page-pfa
Chapter 22 - LaborManagement Relationship
22-10
Additional Resource
See the NLRBs homepagehttp://www.nlrb.gov
C. Unfair Labor Practices by Management
Emphasize:
Why Congress perceived the need for unfair labor practices by management.
What constitutes an unfair labor practices by management.
Sidebar 22.5—“Unfair Labor Practice? The NLRB v. Boeing
Interfering with Unionization
Emphasize:
The disjunctive nature of the first unfair labor practice. The first half refers to
interference with efforts to form, join or assist labor organizations. The second
half refers to interference with employees concerted activities.
The various ways employers can use scare tactics or threats to interfere with the
efforts to form, join, or assist a labor organization.
That a conferral of benefits on employees can be an unfair labor practice.
The temptation to use work rules to discourage unionization.
Cases for Discussion:
1. Town & Country Electric, Inc., a nonunion electrical contractor, wanted to hire
several licensed Minnesota electricians for construction work. Through an
employment agency, Town & Country advertised for job applicants. It refused to
interview 10 of 11 union applicants who responded to the advertisement. Its
employment agency hired the one union applicant whom Town & Country
interviewed, but he was dismissed after only a few days on the job. The members
of the Union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board claiming
that Town & Country and the employment agency had refused to interview or
retain them because of their union membership. An administrative law judge
ruled in favor of the Union members, and the Board affirmed that ruling.
Issue: Can a worker be a companys employee, within the terms of the
National Labor Relations Act if, at the same time, a union pays that worker to
help the union organize the company?

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.