Case Study: Salting, NLRA Violations, and Unionization Analysis

This case study examines the practice of 'salting,' where union members seek employment with non-union companies to organize from within, focusing on a hazardous waste removal company. The analysis distinguishes between overt applicants (those openly displaying union affiliation) and covert applicants (those concealing it). The study addresses whether the company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by discriminating against union members. It questions the applicants' genuine interest in employment versus unionizing motives and explores evidence of antiunion animus in the company's hiring decisions, particularly regarding overt versus covert applicants. The receptionist's statement is highlighted as indicative of the company's anti-union stance. Desklib provides access to similar case studies and solved assignments for students.

CASE STUDY
SALTING
STUDENT ID:
[Pick the date]

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
should benefits be extended to employees willing non-representation by union. 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
antiunion animus was present with regards to refusal for considering overt salts for
employment. This is apparent from the fact that the company decided to not employ overt
salts. The company was clearly encouraged by antiunion amicus when there was an
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.