Labor Analysis Argument for Human Resources

Labor Analysis Argument for Human Resources

 

   
   
   
   

On the basis of Ramah Electronics’ decisions and actions connected with the performance of the International Electrical & Appliance Store Union (IEAW) and subsequent bargaining, it is possible to conclude that the company both acted lawfully and breached the regulations of National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). First of all, the dismissal of Max for the violation of his labor organization’s policy may be regarded as lawful if this violation officially presupposes such penalty according to Ramah Electronics’ rules. In general, employers have a right to establish policies in compliance with employment laws in their interest and on the basis of business needs. Thus, the long-term corporate policy of Ramah Electronics prohibits the distribution of non-company materials and any solicitation by all employees during working time and on company premises. In turn, NLRA allows solicitation or the distribution of materials related to unions in non-working areas and during non-working hours.

On-Time Delivery!

Get your customized and 100% plagiarism-free paper done in as little as 1 hour

Let’s start

165 specialists online

On the basis of NLRA, Max’s actions were lawful as he distributed leaflets with Chloe inserting them in employees’ mail slots that could not be defined as a working area and when business was closed. However, Max has violated the company’s policy that stated that only upper management executives had a right to enter the building when it was close for business. Thus, as Max was not an executive and did not have a right to enter a closed building, he was dismissed. At the same time, if the company’s management had chosen another penalty, such as a serious reprimand or a fine, employees probably would not have supported the Union’s recognition and bargaining.

Nevertheless, workers voted to be represented by the Union, and subsequent actions of President Vivian related to this situation cannot be evaluated as lawful as multiple violations of NLRA were detected. First of all, when Chloe met her and presented the authorization cards signed by the majority of Ramah’s employees, the president declined to recognize the IEAW without providing any reason. In addition, she had an intention to avoid the company’s cooperation with any union.

This position is a serious violation of NLRA basic regulation under Section 7 that states that “employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” (National Labor Relations Board, n.d., sec. 7). The next day, President Vivian had a conversation with employees and provided knowingly fraudulent statements concerning the illegal performance of the Union. This action violated NLRA regulations as well – it is prohibited for an employer to question employees about their union-related sympathies or activities and spread misinformation to coerce or restrain them in the exercise of their rights under the Act (National Labor Relations Board, n.d.). Although the IEAW won the election, without the president’s spread of false evidence, the result would be more objective.

During bargaining sessions, it became clear that the Union and the company took two opposite positions. The latter insisted that it should have the unfettered right to replace employees with independent contractors at any time and on the basis of its sole judgment – and this practice is legal. The company’s interest is easily understandable – the business does not have to pay or withhold any taxes for independent contractors. In turn, the opposition of the Union is obvious as well – independent contractors are not protected by NLRA, their rights may be violated, and unfair labor practices may be applied by the employer in relation to them.

The expediency of employees’ strike in response to the company’s position is controversial. Although NLRA allows employees to strike, the object of a strike and its lawfulness are matters that may be highly di

Order a similar paper

Get the results you need