Campaign Threats or Implied Promise of Benefits?

Case #5,9 Campaign Threats or Implied Promise of Benefits?

Angelia Wright

James Anderson, SR.

Employee and Labor Relations – HRM 534

August 20, 2011

Abstract

In many instances, business managers are persistent in their views that unionization is more harmful than advantageous. Efforts by business managers or anti-union leaders present enormous opposition against labor unions. Although companies and employees have legal rights governing unionization, both parties must adhere to legal guidelines and mandates. The Labor Management Relations Act regulates the relationships between workers and employers. It establishes legitimate rights and identifies unfair labor practices. In an effort to enforce the regulations instituted under the LMRA, the National Labor Relations board was established. The board has two primary responsibilities: to prevent unfair labor practices and to determine if representation by independent labor organizations is warranted.

In accordance with the LMRA and NLRB, the Union alleged Jackson Equipment Company was in violation of the employees rights during a union campaign. Mathis, Jackson, Holley and Jennings (2010) provide a case scenario that demonstrate some questionable behavior of the Employer Representative for the Jackson Equipment Company. Furthermore, Union contends that those actions could have influenced or altered the decision of the company in establishing a union.

Did the employer statements constitute an unlawful threat or an unlawful promise in violation of Section 8 (a) (1)? Why or why not?

Yes, the employer representative of the Jackson Equipment Company used statements that constitute unlawful threats and unlawful promises that violated LMRA Section 8 (a)(1). Statements such as:

• “Nether the company nor the Union can predict what will be in the contract. Union wages and benefits could turn out to be higher, lower or the same as they are… “.

Under Section 8 (a)(1), the law mandates that threats,...