Design Technology Group Llc Case Study Summary

Facts: In Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993), the Court was asked to decide a dispute between an employer (Davis) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had found that Davis committed unfair labor practices, which Davis disputed. A union (Local 23) was attempting to organize a local at Davis. Several employees signed authorization cards for the union. Six of those employees were terminated in a mass layoff that impacted eight employees. Davis then fired or constructively fired three more employees who had filed authorization cards. Davis's chairman of the board then informed employees that he wanted them to sign authorizations with the Steelworkers, a competing union. However, Davis maintained that the employees were terminated for cause, not because they signed authorization cards for Local 23.

When speaking of unfair labor practices, it is imperative to note that, according to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, they include any attempts of an employer to prevent employees from organizing or creating their unions, restrain or interfere with their rights to support the existing union, affect their intentions and perceptions of union activities, threatening an employee with firing them or taking away their benefits predetermined by their competence if they choose to support the union (Legal Information Institute, n.d.; Noe et al.,

Under the Taft-Hartley Act, the balance between management and union was achieved and adjustments to NLRB were made. Over the years though the management-union relationship has evolved and the Taft-Hartley Act should reflect those changes. The act kept most of the policies set down by the Wagner Act intact (Morris, 2012). Unfortunately, just like the Wagner Act, the Board has not properly administered the Taft-Hartley Act and has made poor ruling decisions. When updating the Wagner Act, the Taft-Hartley act should also be updated to reflect societal standards and

After being terminated, Martinez filed an unfair labor practice complaint alleging that the Company’s confidentially agreement was overly broad and unlawfully restricting her rights under section 7 of the LMRA. Martinez reasoning for doing that is because she has the right to disagree with the union and voice her opinion by disclosing the terms of her agreement and involving other parties. She has the right to be able to disclose all the agreements with the contract to the LMRA. The fact that the agreement was so broadly worded results in Martinez not being able to state the exact amounts she would make within this case. If I were a member of the NLRB I would rule this case in favor of the ReadyPro Company. Only because if I was Martinez I would have read over the confidentially agreement and noticed how broad it was and made them change it and add exact amounts in order for me to work there. Martinez didn’t do that, she signed and agreed to obey the contract, therefore if she did step out of her agreement it would result in her being terminated. Lastly, I would rules that ReadyPro to reimburse Martinez the full $15 each day she used her equipment and no longer allow her back into the

Morris ed. 1987) (“the NLRB has not only failed to prevent unfair labor practices, but has actually encouraged their commission because its processes and remedies are so ineffective.”); Martha S. West, The Case Against Reinstatement in Wrongful Discharge, 1988 U. ILL L. REV. 1 25-29, 64 (1988) (finding that the current remedies available to the NLRB are ineffective in preventing employers from committing unfair labor practices); Robert M Worster III, Casenote: If It’s Hardly Worth Doing, It’s Hardly Worth Doing Right: How the NLRA’s Goals Are Defeated Through Inadequate Remedies, 38, U. RICH. L. REV. 1073, 1083 (2004) (“[l]abor law is so weak that companies often treat the minor penalties as a routine cost of doing business, not a deterrent against violations.”).

I definitely think the most important to keep in mind is the employees. As of right now the workers do not have the right to communicate about wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. The NLRB is all about the employee. They want them to have the opportunity and right to be able to communicate freely about these conditions, which I agree

freedom of speech and expression serving as a tool for employees to fight against the

From the case under study it is in line with the legal requirements that the TSA can file a legal petition for reinstatement (Cooper, 2012)., it is clear that the employer entered into this agreement knowingly and ready to abide by the rules and regulations only to deny doing as required by the law and refuse the reinstating of the employees The NLRB is guided by the National Labor Relations Act and has several responsibilities towards the employees. It is under the National Labor Relations Act that the employees who are not represented by a union get their rights protected. Some of the areas where they are assured of the protection are when employees wish to address their employer on pay, when the workers are discussing issues related to work beyond pay such as safety concerns, and when a worker speaks to the employer on behalf of other employees (Schwartz, 1983).

The National Labor Relations Board officially certified the union in a case settlement and ruled that the company violated the law by failing

This case deals with Drake and Keeler as two employees who were unhappy with their work environment and conditions. The supervisor in this case was fully aware of the condition of the warehouse and many issues that related to the temperature of the warehouse. Even after the supervisor was made aware of the complaints, the only strategy was to open and shut the door to control the temperature of the warehouse. The supervisor thought by doing this it would make everyone feel comfortable. One day in the warehouse, employees Drake and Keeler felt cooler because of the temperature on the outside was very cold. Drake and Keeler asked the supervisor to close the door due to the temperature. On this particular day the supervisor felt that

Furthermore, Sec. 8. [§ 158.] (a) acknowledges that, It is an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 [section 157]. All the more this section of the LMRA precisely prohibits the discharge, constructive discharge, suspension, layoff, fail to recall from layoff, demote, discipline, or take any adverse action against the employee because of their protected concerted activities. Since the action of Drake and Keeler is a protected concerted activity, it is protected under Section 7 and the action of the employer is prohibited under Section 8. Section 7 of NLRA assures the employees the rights and Section 8 makes the

Another case were “Wal-Mart in Rodriquez V. Wal-Mart. A Hispanic manager over the age of 40 was placed on disciplinary status for violating the store’s associate purchase policy and warned that any other violation of company policies would result in her terminations. After seeing photo of her co-workers who called in sick at a 4th of July party, she went on one of the co-worker Facebook page and accused the employees by name of lying about being sick. The co-worker reported the incident to Human Resources. HR determine that the manager violated Wal-Mart’s social media policy by publicly chastising employees under her supervision instead of waiting until they return to work to talk to them in private. The policy statement for employees

In fact, Northrop Grumman designer has done an amazing job as well. They describe content and text information in short rephrases to not make a visitor bored. All the reference formatting clearly, and one thing I more like how they used the strategies text content are well defined and recognized so that can be used to present the body part. The pictures appear properly through the all the pages linked them very

User centred (UCD) is an approach that supports the entire development process in which a product is developed for the end users needs, not a product that is going to force the end user to change he’s actions to use the product. The users needs, wants and limitations are a focus at all stages within the design process and development lifecycle. Using the UCD methodology optimizes the final product for the end user. Typical UCD activities are broken down into four phases in the development lifecycle: analysis, design, implementation and launch.

Although Winn-Dixie won at the trial, they experienced an aftermath that they were not expecting. Many co-workers rallied behind Oiler, wondering if the company could do this to him, what might they do next? Certainly people understood that a company can fire anyone for any legal reason, but how much latitude should a company have in defining a “legal” reason? Could they fire an employee who drinks alcohol outside of work, views an “inappropriate” movie, or visits adult Web sites? What if one is arrested? Does that result in an automatic termination? The answer is, it could—but there are consequences to this employer action. In such cases, companies have found that terminating an employee for outside-of-work activities brings negative publicity, lowers employee morale, and increases employee turnover.