HRMD620 Exam #1 Analysis

The assignment is an exam question in Human Resource Management that requires the student to analyze a case where an employee files a Section 8(a)1 complaint with the NLRB against his employer for firing him. The student needs to explain what the decision should be, which side has the right reason, legal framework, and details (evidence) to support its interpretation of the law, and what remedies are needed to correct any violation that occurred.

Running Head: Human Resource Management
Toshiba
Human Resource Management
[Type the document subtitle]
Owner
[Pick the date]

Human Resource Management 1
HRMD 620
Exam #1
Student’s Answer Sheet
Name: ____________________________________________________________________
Part A – Factual Check (20% of the test; 2 points each)
1. True. 6. True
2. True 7. False
3. True 8. True
4. True 9. True
5. True 10. False
Part B – Case Analysis (18% of the test; 3 points each)
1. True 4. True
2. True 5. True
3.True 6. False
Part C - Case Analysis (62% of the test)
In the case below, an employee files a Section 8(a)1 complaint with the NLRB against his
employer for firing him. The employer asserts that it has terminated the employee lawfully.
After reading the facts of the case, explain what the decision should be (who should win).
Also explain any remedies that are needed. Be sure to identify the legal concepts involved
and use details from the case to show evidence in support of your position. Please limit your
analysis to 2-3 double-spaced pages.
Tip – Consider

Human Resource Management 2
1. What is the employee’s argument? Why does he think he was fired? In his view,
which specific provision in the NLRA was broken? What does the provision
require? Using the NLRA requirements, discuss whether the facts in this case
support the employee’s position that his termination constituted an unlawful labor
practice.
Ans: The employees’ argument is that he had the right to posts anything in his fakebook and
did not require any one’s permission. It can also be seen that the employees did not meant to hurt
the reputation as well as the relationship between the firm and the other dealers. Another
argument is that the representatives of the firm did not listened to his views and arguments
properly. The employee was fired because of the Facebook post on the truck’s accident that
occurred due to the negligence of the sales person. Another reason of it is to per So, according to
the employee, the section 7 and 8bof the NLRA policy also known as National Labor Relations
Act is neglected. It is because according to the law the employers or the organizations cannot
force their ideas on an employee. The sections also protect the rights of the employees within the
workplace so that any kind of injustice or partiality cannot be done (Burchill, 2014). It even
claims that an employee cannot be terminated from the position for posting anything in any
social media platforms. So, the termination of the employee is an unlawful labor practice.
2. What is the employer’s argument? Why did it fire the employee? Does the NLRA
prohibit that reason? Using the NLRA requirements, discuss whether the facts in this case
support the employer’s decision to terminate the employee.
Ans: The employer’s argument is that the employee was fired because of the negative
comments he made in the public about the company. The incidents such as truck accident
incident was accepted as a serious issue in harming the reputation as well as the performance of

Human Resource Management 3
the firm along with its dealers as well. The company embarrassed badly in front of the public that
forced them to take the decision of terminating the employees. So, the employee was fired due to
misbehaviour and lack of responsibility he showed while making fun of the accident. No, the
NLRA do not prohibit that reason as the employees have to right to express themselves freely.
They should not be discriminated or judged for maintaining relations with others. So, based on
the NLRA requirements the employer’s decision to terminate the employee is incorrect. It is
because the employers did not provide the employees with the handbook with the help of which
the employees can understand their responsibilities more effectively and efficiently (Calvasina
Calvasina and Calvasina, 2013). So, in the absence of the handbook, the employee should not be
terminated.
3. As the NLRB judge, who do you think is right? Which side has the right reason, legal
framework, and details (evidence) to support its interpretation of the law?
Ans: As an NLRB judge, according to me the employee is correct. The firm or the employer
do not have any right to terminate the employee based on Facebook posts and the comments
made by him. The reason is that the firm was not able to update the employee handbook within
time due to which it is difficult for the employees to understand and follow the rules and
regulations of the company. It should also be noted that the unwritten polices may not guide the
employees properly. According to the rules, the employees have the right to choose certain
activities as well. So, based on that he or she cannot be terminated. Another important reason is
that the employers cannot deny or neglect the rights of the employees according to the collective
bargaining. It is also the duty of the employers of the case study to listen to the employee
carefully and change their strategies to improve themselves in front of the audiences (Greene and

Human Resource Management 4
O'Brien, 2015). It is also important for the firm to follow the legal framework and implement
them efficient so that the employees perform according to their rules of the firm.
4. If a violation occurred, what needs to be done to correct it? (This is the remedy)
Ans: Since, rules, regulations and as well as provisions plays an important role not only in the
better development and growth of the organizations but also protects the rights of both the
employees and the employers so they should be implemented and followed effectively.
Therefore, if the firm or the employers fails to implement the laws effectively and violates them,
then it is the responsibility of the government to ensure the formulation of laws. The government
should motivate the firms to follow the labor and employment rules such as collective
bargaining, maintenance of employee handbook, safety and security of the employees etc. The
employers should also be motivated to follow them effectively. The government should monitor
the firm’s responsibility within a certain period of time so that the employees can perform their
responsibilities efficiently without harming the reputation, growth and performance of the firm.
The proper monitoring can also stop the firms from misusing or violating any important labor
rules according to their will (Tansel and Gazîoğlu, 2014). It is because the misuse of laws can
lead to the destruction of both the personal as well as the professional lives of the employees.

Human Resource Management 5
References
Burchill, F. (2014). Labour relations. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.
Calvasina, G. E., Calvasina, R. V. and Calvasina, E. J. (2013). Protected concerted activity under
the National Labor Relations Act and employee use of social media: Policy and practice
issues for employers. Business Studies Journal, 59.
Greene, S. and O'Brien, C. N. (2015). The NLRB v. The Courts: Showdown over the Right to
Collective Action in Workplace Disputes. American Business Law Journal, 52(1), 75-
130.
Tansel, A. and Gazîoğlu, Ş. (2014). Management-employee relations, firm size and job
satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 35(8), 1260-1275.