Salting Case Study: Analysis of NLRA Section 7 Rights and Anti-Union Attitude of the Employer
Verified
Added on 2023/06/13
|3
|550
|392
AI Summary
This case study analyzes the NLRA Section 7 rights and anti-union attitude of the employer in the Salting case. It discusses the covert and overt applicants, requisite for claiming protection under NLRA, and the opposition of the company to become a union shop.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
CASE STUDY SALTING STUDENT ID: [Pick the date]
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Question 1 The company in the given case is involved in hazardous waste removal. The applicants R and C who applied for the field technician post were covert applications since the fact that they were union members was hidden. However, the other individuals who applied for the same job wore union uniform and hence highlighted that they were union members. These would be referred to as overt applicants. In accordance with s. 8(a)(1), it would be unfair and unlawful if the employer interferes or coerces employees in relation to NLRA Section 7 rights. As a result, the employers should not threaten the employees if they select the union to represent them nor shouldbenefitsbeextendedtoemployeeswillingnon-representationbyunion.The recommended counter-salting steps for employees compares aptly with the conduct of the both the set of employees by the company. It is apparent that none of the candidates had the requisite knowledge/skill and did not possess a license. As a result, these applicants were not fit for the position and hence the company rejected the same which is as per the right to eliminate that employer possesses. Question 2 of the key requisite for claiming protection under the NLRA is that the applicants who are seeking for employment must be genuinely interested in working for the company. However, in the given case it does not seem that either the overt or the covert applicants were genuinely seeking work from the company. Instead the applicants wanted to serve the agenda of unionising the company. This is apparent from the given facts whereby the overt applicants clearly stated that their objective was not to seek employment but rather to
organise the company. Also, with regards to the covert employees, they lacked the pre- requisite skills for the job position that they applied for and they also applied for the position owing to support of the union and the related incentives which the union promised to pass them on. As a result, they joined the job in the post of field technician. Hence, it is apparent that the employees cannot claim any protection under relevant provisions of NLRA. Question 3 The opposition of the company to become a union shop would highlight that antiunionanimuswaspresentwithregardstorefusalforconsideringovertsaltsfor employment. This is apparent from the fact that the company decided to not employ overt salts. Thecompany wasclearlyencouragedby antiunionamicuswhen therewasan application by the two covert salts who lacked the appropriate skills and competency. However, the corporation allowed these covert salts to complete the application process and subsequently they were hired as field technicians. Additional evidence with regards to anti- union attitude on the part of the employer can be garnered from the receptionist statement about not wanting the company to become a union shop. This is indicative enough of the mindset that is embedded in the organisation which clearly sees union as creating more ruckus than actual benefit.