Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Appendix B-261
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 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.
procedures for voting on union representation.
The purpose of this exercise is to provide some guidelines for managers regarding their behavior in
different situations to which the NLRA may pertain. Students are given work-related scenarios and
asked to indicate whether the described behavior or policy is legal under the NLRA and present NLRB
rulings. After they complete the exercise, pertinent NLRB opinions and court rulings are presented.
Director determines that the charge lacks merit, it is dismissed. A dismissal may be appealed to the
General Counsel's office of the NLRB. If the Regional Director finds reasonable cause to believe a
violation of the law has been committed, that office of the NLRB seeks a voluntary settlement to
remedy the alleged violations. If the settlement efforts fail, a formal complaint is issued and the case
goes to a hearing before an NLRB Judge. The judge issues a written decision that may be appealed to
temporary federal court injunction against certain forms of union misconduct, principally involving
"secondary boycotts" and certain forms of picketing.
An NLRB decision is subject to review by a U.S. Court of Appeals and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
Most of the "correct" answers to the questions are based on NLRB rulings. Keep in mind that the
NLRB can reverse positions on these issues and that the Courts can overturn an NLRB ruling. You
Appendix B-262
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
1. Managers do not have to worry about the NLRA if the workers they manage are not in a union.
2. Non-union workers cannot go on strike.
3. A company can adopt a no pro-union shirt rule.
under Section 8(a)1 of the NLRA.
4. A manager can invoke the "employment-at-will" doctrine and fire a non-union worker who
complains about too much overtime.
5. A manager can invoke the "employment-at-will" doctrine and fire an employee who refuses to
obey an order she feels is unsafe.
Appendix B-263
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 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.
activity." See Mead Corp., 331 NLRB 509, 513 (2000).
6. A manager can fire an employee who fails to use the company complaint process and walks off
the job in protest of working conditions.
7. A manager can fire an employee who refuses to work an overtime shift.
The correct answer is: True, if this is the choice by an individual employee. False, if it has been
determined to be concerted activity. A one time concerted refusal to work required overtime shifts is
presumptively protected activity. See Polytech, Inc., 195 NLRB 695 (1972).
8. A manager can fire an employee who voices a complaint in an offensive or disruptive manner.
9. A company may include a rule in its Handbook that prohibits employees from discussing their
wages.
10. Managers can bar off-duty employees from entry to parking lots and other non-working areas.
The correct answer is: False. Except when justified by business reasons, a rule which prohibits off duty
employees entry to parking lots, gates, and other nonworking areas will be unlawful. See Tri County
Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976).
Appendix B-264
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 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.
11. Managers can bar off-site employees from access to an employer's facilities.
12. A manager can fire an employee who makes disparaging remarks about the employer in a
newspaper article or on the internet.
13. An employer can ban all non-business e-mail correspondence among employees.
14. Because of the employment at will doctrine, managers do not necessarily have to apply work
rules consistently.
The correct answer is: False; this would be risky business if the inconsistency is shown to be related to
any activity or behavior covered under the NLRA.
15. A manager can appoint non-union subordinates to a committee to discuss working conditions.
The correct answer is: True. However, if these nonunion employees or committees are found to be
"dealing with" employees (i.e. addressing employee issues on a routine basis) , they may be
Appendix B-265
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
16. A manager can fire a non-union employee who is picketing a store during off-duty hours for
purposes of organizing the workers.
enjoined for at least 30 days. 29 U.S.C 158 (b) (7).
17. A manager can fire an employee if the manager finds out that the employee is a paid union
organizer.
The correct answer is: False. The Supreme Court ruled in NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, Inc. 516
U.S. 85 (1995) that this is a violation of the NLRA. This tactic, called "salting," had its genesis in the
construction industry. The court has stated that "salts" are "employees" for purposes of the NLRA and
are therefore, protected from discrimination on the basis of their union activity.
18. A manager can refuse to hire a job applicant if the manager knows the applicant is a union
member.
19. An employer can adopt a no "Moonlighting" policy if the employer is concerned about paid
union organizers being hired.
20. An employer can refuse to hire an over-qualified individual if management knows the individual
is sympathetic to unions.
Appendix B-266
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 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.
enforced mutually and consistently. Even if the intent can be shown, the Board may consider this type
of policy to be a pretext for discrimination against salts. In Aztech Electric Co., 335 NLRB 260 (2001),
the Board decided, based on the facts of the policy of not hiring any applicant with a recent wage
earning of 30 percent or more than the employer's starting wage, was in violation of the employee's
rights under the NLRA. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit held that because the wage comparability rule was
not motivated by antiunion animus, its application was nondiscriminatory. See Contractor's Labor
Pool v. NLRB, 323 F. 3d 1051 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
21. An employer can refuse to hire an applicant who violates a company rule forbidding disclosure
by applicants of "protected activity" such as union organizing.
The correct answer is: False. Applicants should not be interrogated concerning their union
sympathies. Teletech Holdings, Inc. 333 NLRB 402 (2001).
22. A manager is allowed to say strikes are "inevitable" if there is a union.
23. A manager can say that the store or plant will shut down if a union is voted in.
24. A manager can ask employees questions about where they stand on unions.
25. An employer can promise increases in employee benefits during an organizing campaign.
Appendix B-267
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
© 2013 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 correct answer is: False. Although the NLRA does not limit the promises that a union can make
during an organizing campaign, employers are prohibited from promising, expressly or otherwise,
wage increases or improved working conditions for the purpose of convincing employees to vote
against union representations after a petition requesting an election has been filed. See Niblock
Excavating, Inc. 337 NLRB 53 (2001) enforced 59 Fed. App. 882 7th Cir. (2003).
26. An employer can impose a "No solicitation" rule stipulating no union organizing.
27. An employer can allow antiunion activity during work hours while disallowing pro-union
activity.
The correct answer is: False. If the employer permits antiunion solicitation by employees but prohibits
prounion solicitation, it violates Section 8 (a) (1). Albertson's, Inc. 323 NLRB 1, (1997) enforced 161 F.
3d 1231 (10th Cir. 1998).
28. An employer can allow charities to distribute material while not allowing a union from
distributing information.
29. An employer can ban pro-union buttons or insignia during working hours.
Appendix B-268
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
30. An employer can ban union material from a bulletin board that allows Red Cross solicitations.
31. An employer can ban pro-union screen-savers on the employer's computer.
savers including pro-union savers as long as there are no exceptions.
32. A manager is allowed to say wages and benefits are not paid during a strike.
The correct answer is: True. Employers may emphasize that wages and benefits are not paid during a
strike.
33. A manager is allowed to say unemployment insurance is unavailable during a strike.
34. A manager is allowed to say that strike benefits are only available to workers who picket.
The correct answer is: True. Strike benefits are only available to employees who participate in
picketing the employer.
35. A manager is allowed to say "my eyes are on you and you'd better watch your step" to a pro-
union employee.
36. A manager can hire "permanent replacement workers" during a strike action and these
Appendix B-269
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
replacements need not be displaced when the strike ends.
it in those terms. See Piezo Technology 253 NLRB 900 (1980). Also HR professionals need to be aware
that the NLRB grants preferential reinstatement rights to economic strikers. See Golden Stevedoring
Co., 335 NLRB 410 (2001).
37. The use of employee survey data (see statement below).
A retailer surveys its employees annually as part of its "Grass Roots" program. The survey is designed
to assess employees' perceptions on work-related issues. Results are tabulated by store, and the top
True or False. The use of the UPI is legal under the NLRA.
38. An employee has a blog he uses to encourage employees to form a union. In this blog, he makes
false statements regarding the employer. The employer can therefore fire him.
harmful and sensitive rumors that the employee knows or should know are false is not protected by
the NLRA.
Appendix B-270
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
Chapter Exercise 13.3
The Baseball Strike: An Example of Collective Bargaining
Joseph G. Clark, Jr.
IM Notes prepared by Joyce E. A. Russell
Objective. This exercise describes the difficulties that can arise from two-party negotiations. It also
enables students to see some of the preparation involved in collective bargaining, and to prepare an
argument for the advancement of goals in collective bargaining.
Description. The exercise should take about 15 minutes of in-class time for students to select who
will be on each team (baseball players union, team owners) as well as selection of the mediator. The
professor may want to pick one or two mediators based on those with effective negotiating skills.
After individually reading the appropriate exhibit (Exhibit 13.3.1 for students assigned to the players
union and Exhibit 13.3.2 for students assigned to the baseball owners group), students should discuss
their views with others on their team. The discussion should focus on what they will ask for in the
negotiations. These small group discussions may take about 20 minutes of in-class time.
Once both sides are ready, they should begin the formal negotiation process. The professor should
time the discussion and end the talks when 25 minutes have elapsed or when a final decision has
been reached. The mediator may be called in if either side chooses to use mediation.
It would be fruitful to brief students on the issues involved in the latest union and management
baseball negotiations.
Appendix B-271
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
Table 13.3.1
Responses to Form 13.3.1 Reaction Form
1. What were the terms of the final agreement negotiated between the two sides?
2. What were the difficulties that arose while trying to reach an agreement?
Students may discuss personality issues, communication skills, and differences of opinions, etc. as the
major difficulties.
3. What role can you see the mediator playing during bargaining of this type?
want.
4. During collective bargaining, discussions can become heated. Did this occur during the
exercise, and, if so, how was this resolved?
5. In the future, what techniques might both sides try to better gain their objectives?
Make sure that each side has a clear sense of what is most important to them, and what they are
willing to give in on. They should also make sure they have good representation (i.e., someone who
can speak effectively for their side and the group feels will represent them fairly).
Appendix B-272
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
CHAPTER 14 – CHAPTER EXERCISES
Chapter Exercise 14.1
The Development of a Company Smoking Policy
Objective. The purpose of Exercise 14.1 is to have students recognize and understand the controversy
surrounding smoking in the workplace, and apply this knowledge by designing a workplace smoking
policy. The exercise requires the student to integrate material from Chapter 3 (Equal Employment
Opportunity).
Description. Part A requires each student to formulate a smoking policy. This should take no more
than one hour of out-of-class preparation in addition to reading the chapter. The student is asked to
assume the role of a committee member who has been appointed to develop a new policy for the
clerical staff of a law firm. Table 14.1.1 presents several factors that should be considered in the
design of a successful program. Table 14.1.2 provides a model for the development of a policy. You
should emphasize that the legality of a policy may depend on the location of the company since state
and local laws may differ. Part B requires students to assemble in groups and compare policies.
About 40 minutes should be set aside for discussion and another 15 minutes should be allotted for
group presentations.
In order to enhance the group discussion, you should encourage students to examine approaches
currently being used by organizations. For example, the Bureau of National Affairs publishes a weekly
newsletter, called the Bulletin to Management: BNA Policy and Practice Series, which reports on a
variety of HRM activities, including the development of smoking policies. Other periodicals of interest
include Management Review, Safety and Health, Supervision, and Training and Development Journal,
to name a few. These publications should be available in your local library.
You should emphasize that there is no "one right answer." Instead, students should use their own
logical reasoning to decide on an anti-drug policy.
Appendix B-273
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
CASE DISCUSSION
Although student responses may vary, most will agree that smoking policies are beneficial to
organizations. Not long ago, smoking was a well-accepted habit. However, in the midst of today's
health and fitness craze, many people view smoking as unhealthy, and even offensive. Given this
trend it is unlikely that students will advocate taking no action at all. Rather, in one form or another,
they will suggest some type of smoking policy.
Table 14.1.1 presents some of the issues surrounding the development of smoke-free practices. For
example, there are many reasons for adopting a workplace smoking policy. A Bureau of National
Affairs (BNA) survey found that the most popular reason was a concern for employees' health,
followed by complaints from nonsmokers, legal compliance, and concerns about welfare costs. Least
cited reasons included concerns about smokers' job performance (e.g., productivity, absenteeism)
and concerns about high business insurance costs.
Probably the most controversial aspect of developing a smoking policy is deciding on the proper
strategy to employ. Some of the more popular options are discussed below.
Option 1: Refusing to hire nonsmokers in the future
This is a possibility but could be illegal. Page 489- “The Michigan company that banned all smoking (on
and off the job) could not impose such a rule in most of the 29 states with “smokers’ rights laws.” A
New Jersey state law, for example, prohibits discrimination in hiring, pay, and working conditions
against smokers “unless the employer has a rational basis for doing so.” Unfortunately, it is now up to
employers to determine what constitutes a “rational basis.” Are higher health care costs a rational
basis? The state of New York has one of the most sweeping laws regarding protections for
nonsmokers. Employers must adopt and post a written policy on smoking that must include smoke-
free work and eating areas.
Option 2: Preventing New Hires and Incumbents from Smoking Off-the-Job
Appendix B-274
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
While employers have the right to establish smoke-free workplaces, their right to impose rules, which
restrict smoking off the job, remains uncertain. However, the fact that the tobacco industry has
joined forces with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to promote smokers' rights may mean
that employers with such stringent policies will face increased numbers of lawsuits. In general, the
rationale from the first scenario applies here as well.
Option 3: Allowing Smoking In Designated Areas Only
This approach appears to accommodate both sides as it respects smokers' rights to privacy and
nonsmokers' rights to avoid the effects of second-hand smoke. For example, the law firm in this case
could prohibit smoking in certain areas (e.g., offices, meeting rooms, computer areas, elevators),
while allowing smoking in other areas (e.g., sections of employee lounges, rest rooms, outside the
office building). Employee attitude surveys could be used to decide upon the location of designated
areas.
`
Option 4: Strict Ban on Smoking in the Workplace
As mentioned earlier, employers do have the right to ban smoking on-the-job. Further, given the
amount of evidence that documents the hazards of smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke
(page 488), it should not be surprising to see organizations take this approach. However, such an
approach is almost certainly going to cause resistance from nonsmokers. Short-term effects might
include lower employee morale and dissension among smokers and nonsmokers. Long-term
implications could include increased absenteeism and/or increased voluntary turnover of high
performing smokers.
Table 14.1.1 also lists others factors to consider when creating smoking policies. Employers may be
able to avoid morale or even legal problems by implementing policies that have been carefully
designed to ensure fair, nondiscriminatory practices. Table 14.1.2 presents a guide for the
development of such a policy. Such policies will also enable organizations to maintain a high quality
of work life (QWL).
Other Questions for Discussion:
Appendix B-275
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
The following questions have no "correct" answers. Instead, they were designed to stimulate further
group discussion.
1. In response to charges of discrimination, could employers claim that refusing to hire applicants
who smoke and/or requiring incumbents to quit smoking is a business necessity? (Refer back to
Chapter 3. Consider that most companies pay for employees' health insurance, health costs are
rising, and smokers tend to have higher premiums. For example, in a recent in-house survey, Texas
Instruments found that smokers’ health costs were 50% higher than nonsmokers.)
2. What is the smoking policy at your university? at local businesses?
3. Suppose you work for a company that allows smoking in designated areas only (e.g., lounge
area and outside). Over time you find that employees who smoke frequently leave their immediate
office area to briefly smoke a cigarette. Should these individuals receive more break times than their
nonsmoking counterparts? NO. What could be done, if anything, to ensure fairness toward
nonsmokers? Break Time should be equal for everyone.
More information on smoking:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Guide to Workplace Smoking Policies” recommends that
employers create ventilated smoking lounges to separate smokers from nonsmokers. One study
found that smokers in a nonsmoking organization reduced the number of cigarettes smoked per work
shift and decreased levels of nicotine and carbon monoxide. Thus, worksite smoking restrictions may
promote meaningful reductions in tobacco exposure and consequent health risks.
One of the most volatile issues for human resource professionals today is a company’s position on
smoking. Growing information about the adverse effects of secondhand smoke has led to a call for a
ban on smoking in the workplace. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that
secondhand smoke causes 3,800 lung cancer deaths per year and classified it as a “class A” life-
threatening carcinogen, a rating used only for substances (i.e., asbestos, radon, benzene) proven to
cause cancer in humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that $75 billion is
spent annually on medical expenses attributed to smoking. Businesses lose $82 billion in lost
productivity from smokers. And smokers take about 6.5 more sick days a year than nonsmokers.
About one in five Americans—or 46 million people—smoke. The costs of property fires ($500 million
per year) and additional cleaning required because of smoking ($4 billion per year) are also significant.
The American Heart Association reported that passive smoking is the third greatest preventable cause
of death in the United States.
Appendix B-276
| Appendix B – Chapter Exercises
A growing number of companies are banning smoking for employees both on and off the job. Weyco,
a Michigan-based health care company, told their current employees who smoked that they had 15
months to quit. Weyco offered free cessation classes and even paid. They then banned all smoking
from its property, banned all smokers from new positions, and conducted breath tests to determine if
employees smoked. If employees test positive, they’re charged $50 a month if they weren’ t enrolled
in a cessation program. When they tested everyone again, four employees refused to be tested and
were terminated. The company stated that the no-smoking policy was part of Weyco’s goal for
healthy lifestyles. Critics are concerned about the “slippery slope” regarding lifestyle. Weyco employs
a health consultant to help workers with their diet. What comes next; a no Big-Mac policy?
The Michigan company that banned all smoking could not impose such a rule in most of the 29 states
with “smokers’ rights laws.” A New Jersey state law, for example, prohibits discrimination in hiring,
pay, and working conditions against smokers “unless the employer has a rational basis for doing so.”
Unfortunately, it is now up to employers to determine what constitutes a “rational basis.” Are higher
health care costs a rational basis?
The state of New York has one of the most sweeping laws regarding protections for nonsmokers.
Employers must adopt and post a written policy on smoking that must include smoke-free work and
eating areas.
Table 14.1.1
Issues to Consider in the Design of a Smoking Policy
ISSUE
COMMENTS
1. What is the reason for adopting the
policy?
Concern about:
- employee health and/or comfort
- health care/ insurance costs
- smoker behaviors (e.g., increased absenteeism,
lost productivity)
- state or local law
- complaints from non-smokers
2. What type of strategy can be
Options may include not hiring applicants who
