1
Chapter 32
Labor Law
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
32.1 Unfair Labor Practice
Yes, the president of the Sinclair Company violated federal labor law by unlawfully interfering with the
union election. The Supreme Court held that although an employer is free to communicate to his
employees his general views about unionism or his specific views about a particular union, his statements
may not contain a threat of reprisal, force, or coercion. He may make predictions of the effects he believes
32.2 Right-to–Work Law
The union wins and its agency shop agreement is legal and enforceable. The U.S. Supreme Court held
that Texas’ right–to-work law did not apply to the workers in this case. The court held that the
predominant job situs was the controlling factor in determining whether a state’s right–to-work law
applies. Here, the court reasoned that because most of the employees’ work is done on the high seas and
32.3 Unfair Labor Practice
Yes, the Carpenters’ Union’s refusal to hang the prefabricated doors at the job site was a lawful work
stoppage and does not violate federal labor law. The object of the union’s action was to preserve work
32.4 Illegal Strike
No, Bownds and the employees who engaged in the walkout cannot get their jobs back. Bownds, who
was discharged for his actions in cutting the bags of flour, was properly discharged for his conduct. The
court found that the other employees had engaged in an illegal “wildcat strike” that was not sanctioned by
2
(United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
32.5 Replacement Workers
ruling in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants, 489 U.S., 109 S.Ct.
1225 (1989), today the company could offer the crossovers the seniority they had prior to the strike.
N.L.R.B. v. Erie Resistor Company, 373 U.S. 221, 83 S.Ct. 1139, 1963 U.S. Lexis 2492 (Supreme Court
of the United States)
VII. Answer to Ethics Case
32.6 Ethics Case
a means to bring economic pressure to bear in support of its bargaining position was lawful under the
National Labor Relations Act. The court held that an employer can engage in a lockout and preempt the