Labor Relations

Yesenia Contreras

Case Study 9.6

HRCU 352 – Labor Relations

Professor Patterson

November 29, 2015

The union engaged in a lawful economic strike against the Brown Bag Company. The Brown Bag company is the employer. The Stop & Shop grocery is the secondary employer. “… the Stop & Shop grocery store, a secondary employer who use grocery bags produced by the Brown Bag Company” (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012, pg. 422). The secondary employer is “one with no direct authority to resolve the labor dispute,” also “…may become involved in a labor dispute either voluntary or involuntary” (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012, pg. 403). The Stop & Shop grocery store is the secondary employer because they have no direct authority to resolve the problem of the main employer which is the Brown Bag Company. The Stop & Shop grocery store got involved involuntary is the labor dispute. The Shop & Stop grocery store is not a business ally because they did not know of the problem and got involved involuntary on the labor dispute.

The merged product doctrine should be applied in this case to declare that the union’s product picket action was unlawful. The Shop & Stop store provides boxes instead of bags to a few customers who specially request a box instead of a bag. But the majority of the shoppers take their items in bags produce by the Brown Bag Company. The union’s signs especially identify the Brown Bag Company as the target of the picket action and request customer to boycott only the bags from that company. During the days of the boycott, “…150 of 4,300 customers who shop at the Shop & Stop grocery store specially requested a box to transport their groceries rather than a bag” (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012, pg. 422).During the two days the managers were able to provide boxes for “… two-thirds of the customers who requested a box rather than use a grocery bag produced by the Brown Bag Company” (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012, pg. 422). This shows that...