Case 15-1: The Unions Demand for Recognition and Bargaining Rights

In case study 15-1 a union representative made claims against a company of unfair labor practices. The Union also claimed that this was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA. The Union organizer claimed that the company had interrogated the employees to decipher if a union was being established in the company. Melton, the supervisor of the employees at the time of these discrepancies, did engage in questioning three employees of their union activity within the organization. The Union organizer also argued that the company had threatened employees. The Union rep was based this argument off of the comments of the new supervisor of these employees when he made the comment that if a Union was elected the janitors helpers would lose their rent free apartments and the janitors charged for second bedrooms. My opinion is this was a statement by the supervisor but did seem intended to coerce the voting. The last argument that I find most persuasive for the favor of the Union is the unique timing of new health benefits of the company (Schoen & Gilbert, 1989), which seems to be a direct persuasion to the employees to not vote for the Union. As with all arguments there is a different view point. The company believed that because Meltons comments were not intended to coerce employees this was not in violation. I tend to agree that despite the inquiries Melton never indicated any loss of benefits to employees. Also that Melton was terminated prior to the election so any indication of threats would be obsolete since that employee was no longer employed with the company. The company also makes the statement that the health benefits were scheduled after the companys annual review of their current benefits package (Schoen & Gilbert, 1989).

The last position of the company was that the new supervisors comments were not a threat but a valid prediction. I personally believe that the most influential arguments for the Union is the medical benefits however I feel the company had already made the arrangements for new benefits since this all happened in little over the course of a month. I also agree with the company that Nords comments were a prediction by him more intended as a fore warning and was not backed by the company making it free speech. One issue the Union does have is the company did not recognize the 50%+ majority of application cards presented by the Union which follows the NLRBs sequence of organizing. The company did however follow the sequence and allowed the Union to hold an election but the Union did not win (Schoen & Gilbert, 1989). Taking into consideration the large list of discrepancies filed by the Union and those counters of the company I find it difficult to choose a side. Despite my personal opinion that Unions are a waste of an employees pay, if the company was found in violation LMRA I would think that a new election should be held to determine if the interest was still. However I would agree that the entire process should be started over in the following year so as to let the tension reside and have the new benefits set in as well as give employees that time to ensure that if they are going to lose their free housing what they can do if it is taken away due to the costs of the Union and their bargaining. My personal belief is that Unions are effective in using the money of those who have little to stir the pot and every 10 years get the employees larger raises. I do believe in due process and following the law but I also believe that if someone is going to propose a Union be established that get all the information and understand what that Union will do for them as well

as what may happen to the company. Unfortunately some Unions have too much power and if they push enough on a small enough company can run a business under. In this case the group of janitors seemed to have legitimately started the process but maybe did not take into consideration of the affects of creating a Union. Personally an employee providing a free place to live is quite nice and a huge benefit. In summary I am in favor on the company and that they may have broken some minor items they did not break enough to persuade the votes. At least not enough as the persuasion of Union organizers.

Schoen, Sterling H. & Hilgert, Raymond L. (1989). Cases in Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relation, 6th, 94-97.