Case #5.9 - Campaign Threats or Implied Promise of Benefit?

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

Section 8 (a)(1) of LMRA prohibits interference, restraint, or coercion directed against union or other collective activity. There were multiple statements made by the employer such as “if the union won the election, the employees’ benefits would be reduced”. The union also stated that the employer’s statements implied a promise to do things differently or better if the employees voted against the union. Both of these statements constitute an unlawful threat or an unlawful promise in violation of Section 8 (a)(1). When the employer stated that if the union won the election, the employees’ benefits would be reduced, it constitutes an unlawful threat. The employer even went as far as to provide copies of a decision in which the court upheld the employer’s right to inform his employees that he may not even have to agree to the continuance of existing wages and benefits. This could persuade an employee to vote against a union without even knowing if things would be the same for him and his company. Pay and benefits are very important for employees and feeling that their vote could have a negative effect on either one is considered a threat. The employer’s statement to do things differently if they voted against the union is an unlawful promise. The employer was basically trying to bribe the employees to vote a particular way. If the employer recognized things that needed to be changed, they should change them regardless of whether the employees vote to unionize. The employer implied that they would only make the changes if the employees decided to vote against the union. Overall, the employer tried to put fear in its employees or bribe them with changes based on how they voted. Both are illegal and the employer should be punished.

Did the questioning or statements by either supervisor Bates or Lofton constitute...