Eletromation V. National Labor Relations Board

10/3/2011

Eletromation v. National Labor Relations Board

In the National Labor Relations Board case (the plaintiff) argued that Eletromation, (the defendant) sustained, managed and encouraged employee committees to brainstorm and reach solutions for the financial well-being of the company. The defendant argued that there was no wrong and that the committees were not labor organizations, that they did not interfere with employee free choice, and instead, there was a mutual relationship between the employer and employees helping each other to solve issues.

The issues in question are not limited to the defendant’s changes to the wages schedule whose objective was to reduce labor cost. The proposed changes spurred discontent in the employees who voiced their discontent and presented a signed petition. It is important to mention that the defendant’s workforce totaled 200 in which women formed a majority.

After meeting with the employees, the defendant foresaw the formation of committees as solution to the wage issue. The member recruiting at first was at random, but soon the committee suggested a broader participation in the committee by fellow members. Sign-in sheets were posted, but members were hand-picked and committees were controlled by management members.

The latter is prohibited by the section 2(5) Act because in this case, the defendant retained total control over the committees and the issues handled by the committees, instead of allowing a labor organization provided by the section 8(a,2) and (1) which constitutes a violation of the employee rights.

“labor organization” under section 2(5) Act that states that the committees do not "deal with" management but rather, "within their domains of authority. “.

Furthermore, the National Labor Relations Board beheld that the employee committee participation may have totally or partially impacted the union elections outcome. If in fact this was the case, the defendant’s involvement with the committees...