Analyze the Fairness of an Employer's Actions in a Wright Line Test

The provided content discusses unfair labor practices (ULPs) under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The case involves a company that attempted to dissuade employees from unionizing by threatening job losses, closing shops, and changing work conditions. The company also posted 'no solicitation' signs and enforced them. The employees were threatened with loss of jobs for participating in union activities. The company's actions are analyzed as ULPs under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, which guarantees employees the right to support or not support any union and engage in collective action.

Part A – Basic Knowledge
1. True or False: Companies which would like to avoid unionization can hire only
employees who pledge to refrain from union membership. False
2. True or False:The worker must be part of the designated bargaining unit in order to
vote in the election.-True
3. The underlying principle for the NLRB’s determination of an appropriate bargaining
unit is that only employees who have__b__ can be appropriately grouped in that unit.
a. the same number of years of total work experience
b. similar wages, hours, and working conditions
c. similar cultural and regional backgrounds
d. the same educational background
e. the same supervisor
4. True or False:If the bargaining unit has 100 people and 75 sign authorization cards,
under the existing law, the election is waived and the union automatically wins. True
5. True or False: If the bargaining unit has 100 people, at least 50 need to sign
authorization cards in order for an NLRB-sponsored secret-ballot election to be
conducted. False
6. True or False: Given the most recent NLRB ruling, employees who have access to
the company email system are restricted from using it for union organizing. False
7. True or False: Neither labor nor management can be certain if a specific action will
constitute an unfair labor practice under Section 8 because the politically-appointed
NLRB changes its opinion. False
8. True or False: If the bargaining unit has 100 people and 80 of them vote in a secret-
ballot election, at least 41 must select the union in order for it to win. True
9. Which of the following statements is TRUE of certification of a union by the NLRB
using a secret-ballot election?
a. Once a union is certified by the NLRB, its status is binding on the employer for at least
two years, during which time the employer must bargain with it. False
b. It is mandatory for a certified union to undergo a recertification election every two years.
False

c. If a certified union fails to reach its first contract within two months of bargaining, it is
penalized under the NLRA. False
d. The NLRB will not entertain a rival certification petition for a bargaining unit
represented by a certified union within the first year. True
10. True or False: The certified union has exclusive bargaining rights and
responsibilities for only those employees within the bargaining unit who join the
union. True
Part B - Case Analysis
For 3 years Jack Sandeen has worked for Crate Builders, an industrial plant that
manufactures and sells high-tech packing containers in an employment-at-will state within
the eastern United States. When he was hired, he believed he would receive training that
would enable him to move from the factory floor into the supervisor’s role. The company
experienced a downturn in revenue, however; and, along with 50 hourly workers, several
managerial positions were eliminated. During restructuring, the boss’s son, Darrell Shelton,
was appointed head of Jack’s department. There has been friction between Darrell and the
rest of the staff. They don’t like the new scheduling and work quotas he has implemented.
When Jack complained to Darrell that the required quota was too high, in front of the other
workers, Darrell snidely reminded him that he was the supervisor, times were tough, and
more people could be let go.
That evening, Jack went with a few of the guys to the local pub. A union organizer was at
the bar and overheard the group complaining about Darrell. The organizer told them about
their right to representation. He gave them his business card along with a few brochures to
take home. The next week, Darrell found one of the brochures on the floor by the locked
company bulletin board. The staff saw him crumple it and spike it into the trash can. He
turned and glared at Jack. “You think you’re so smart. We’re watching you. We know
about your little chat.” He bit back more words then walked into his office and slammed the
door.
Several weeks later, Jack was called into the Human Resource Management office. He was
informed that his production numbers were low and they needed to cut more staff so he was
being let go. Jack asked to see the statistics for the department, but HR said that was
proprietary information. When he asked who else was being fired, HR told him that was
also private information. The guys at the bar told Jack later that they could not find anyone
else who was terminated when he was.
1. True or False: The comment “We know about your little chat” would help management
in a Wright Line test.
2. True or False: If Jack’s production numbers were higher than most, this data would
support

Management in a Wright Line test. True
3. True or False: Since this is an employment-at-will state and there is no union in place,
management can legally terminate Jack without considering any Wright Line test
results. False
4. True or False: At work, Jack had a right to solicit other employees in his department
to join the union as long as he did it during regular working hours and didn’t do it in
front of customers. False
4. True or False: The union would see the comment “We’re watching you” as an
unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)1 of the NLRA. True
5. True or False: Promoting Jack to supervisor in the last restructuring would have
been a legal way to avoid his union participation. True
6. True or False: The company can terminate a supervisor at any time for any reason
if it does not have other policies or contracts that contradict that flexibility. False
7. True or False: Terminating others who were not involved with the union at the
same time Jack was let go would support the company’s position in an unfair labor
practice charge. True
8. True or False: Section 7 rights require the company to terminate those with less
than the 3 years seniority Jack has before letting him go - False
9. True or False: Darrell’s comments represent Budd’s concept of voice. False
Part C – Case Analysis
The underlying principle of National Labor Act is that the employees have a right to
represent their needs and demands through union representation wherein Section 7 of the
NLRA guarantees employees the right to support or not support any union, to engage in
collective action and bargain collectively with their employer. (NLRB)The employers on the
other hand, are prohibited from discriminating employees for participating in union
activities. In the present case, while the employees wanted to be represented by a union, the
company used all of its persuasive measures to convince them against unionization. When
these persuasive methods failed, the employees were threatened that they would be
dismissed from their jobs, and would also lead to closing down of shops. Aggrieved by this
action of the employers, the union is contemplating on filing a case with the NLRB.

Unfair Labor Practice refers to practices adopted by the employers which contravene the
rights of employees granted under Section 7 of the Act, thereby interfering with an
employee’s right to organize, assist or participate in a union and engage in the process of
collective bargaining. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA renders it unfair labor practice for any
employer to interfere, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7” (Hyman, 2012). However, the employer can take proactive steps and convince the
employees through negotiations and meetings against union formation through fair means.
Analysis of the case
Unfair labor practice
claim(s)
Union’s position for each Company’s position for
each
Dissuading the union by
stating that an injunction had
been issued during prior union
campaign prohibiting
solicitation on company
property
The union workers can
lobby during the non-
working hours and in non-
working places
The company can prohibit
non-employees from
lobbying on the company
property unless it is difficult
for a union to carry out the
union activities (Lechmere,
Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Board, 1992)
Posting of “no solicitation”
signs in all stores and directed
that those signs be enforced
The union can carry out its
activities unless the
employer can prove that
such restrictions are
necessary to maintain
discipline.
The company has a policy
forbidding all forms of
solicitations and lobbying
during work hours
(Washington Fruit and
Produce Company and
International Brotherhood of
Teamsters v National Labor
Relations Board, , 2011)
Threatening employees with
loss of jobs for participation in
union activities
Such threats to employees
lead to interference of the
rights guaranteed under
Section 7 and makes it an
unfair labor practice under
Seciton 8(a)(1) of the Act
(Placeholder4) (NLRB)
The employer’s contention is
that it interferes in the
company’s ordinary course
of business.

Threatening to close the shops if
employees select a union to
represent them
There is a clear violation of
Section 7 of the NLRA,
which gives enough ground
for the employees to form a
union
Has informed the employees
in good faith of the
possibility of strikes, fines
and assessments if they
would participate in the
union.
Bringing about changes in the
company rules subject to
mandatory bargaining such as
bringing in a 40 hour workweek,
installation of canopy lights,
receiving of overtime work pay
The employer’s action is a
result of bad faith, as the
company has an obligation
to collective bargain in
good faith (Labor Board v
Katz, 1962)
Highlighted the good
features of working in the
company and that there are a
number of benefits such as
job security and steady work
included
Promising the employees
benefits including death,
insurance, benefits in order to
dissuade union activities
Violation of 8(d), resulting
in the material
modification of employee
conditions
The company has ensured
long term benefits for the
employees and the benefits
of job security and best pay
package.
Making all other incidental
unilateral changes subject to
mandatory bargaining
The company has an
obligation under Section
8(a)(5) to not modify
employee conditions
All made under good faith
for the benefit of the
employees
It is therefore evident that the company has indulged in a number of unfair labor
practices, thereby causing violation of Section 7 and 8(a) of the Act. While bringing
about changes in the working conditions subject to rules of mandatory bargaining in
order to dissuade the employees from unionization and engaging in the process of
collective bargaining, is illegal, the same goes as far as the threats to close down and
layoffs are concerned. The best resort for the company is to adopt means of fair
means of labor practices and adopt changes in methods and management during the
course of collective bargaining between union and the employers.
References
Hyman, J. T. (2012). The Employer Bill of Rights: A Manager's Guide to Workplace Law. New York:
Apress.
Labor Board v Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 1962 (U.S. Supreme Court May 21, 1962).

Lechmere, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 502 U.S. 527 (1992) (The Supreme Court
November 1992).
NLRB. (n.d.). Interfering with employee rights (Section 7 & 8(a)(1). Retrieved October 20, 2016, from
National Labor Relations Board:
https://www.nlrb.gov/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employers/interfering-employee-rights-
section-7-8a1
Washington Fruit and Produce Company and International Brotherhood of Teamsters v National
Labor Relations Board, , 343 NLRB 125 (NLRB August 26, 2011).