Labor Relations - Union & Management

Unequal access to employees—employers can meet with employees informally, conduct captive audience meetings, enforce no solicitation rules against union organizers, and limit employee use of company e-mail while unions merely get a list of employee addresses after the election date is set; possibilities for reform include banning employer captive audience meetings, giving unions the right to hold captive audience meetings, requiring a certain number of campaign debates, or allowing unions to send e-mail messages using the company’s system, making Excelsior lists available at any time, or after a union collects 30 percent signed authorization cards, or to include employee e-mail addresses as part of the Excelsior

employer would be at risk in an invasion of privacy lawsuit. A final issue is that of consistency.

“Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection”.

It was stated that it would only be seen as violation if the workplace becomes “hostile or abusive”.

Unions employ labor laws to protect their members from organizations that operate in violation of the National Labor Relations Board. It is imperative that organizations such as Lewis & Lambert have a clear understanding of their union contract and the laws set forth by the NLRB.

According to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986, "an employer can monitor their employee to ensure adequate job performance and supervise customer contacts."

The NLRB ruled in favor of the employees because of a few reasons. The first reason was because the Board inferred that the employees contemplated group action for their mutual benefit or protection, even though the employees never discussed bringing the employee’s comments to management or taking any action at all. The Board reiterated that the employees’ objective of group action does not actually have to be expressed during the communication. Although the actions of the employees were found to be protected by the NLRB, I believe that social media and public forums are not the place for employees to communicate with one another regarding anything related to their person employment relations. I make it a point to not befriend any coworkers on any social media platform and I suggest to my staff to do the same. There are other places coworkers can voice concerns regarding issues within the workplace. There should be a way for the employees to voice concerns with one another that is not on a public forum on the

A decision to reinstate employees by the NLRB, regarding a retailer engaged in unfair labor practices by a judge in the case of Design Technology Group, LLC (Bette Page), et al., has been settled. The company terminated three employees who engaged in a concerted activity that was protected through discussions on Facebook. The issue occurred when the manager was away and found that the business was closed an hour early based on the following reasons safety, harassments by local street people, these issues were previously brought to human resources. The employees closed the business early with permission from the owner. The store manager angrily scolded employees over the phone upon hearing this.

would be where the employees clock in. This is one of many examples that Dalman and Lei can

The Court held an employer could not be compelled by the Act to do so if other channels of communication are available that allows the union to reach the employees, provided that the employer does not discriminate against the union by allowing other distributions. The Supreme Court stated that so long as the circumstances of the employment do not "place the employees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them," respect for the employer 's property rights allow it to prohibit nonemployee access to its property. In doing so, the Court specifically differentiated the access rights of employees from those of nonemployees. The distinction [between employees and nonemployees] is one of substance. No restriction may be placed on the employees ' right to discuss self-organization among themselves unless the employer can demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to maintain production or discipline. Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board, 324 U.S. 793, 803. But no such obligation is owed nonemployee organizers.” Ted Scott and Sara B. Kalis, Littler Mendelson, P.C.1.

What is the role of management and unions in society today? How has this changed in the last 100 years?

There is a distinct contrast in the freedom of speech rights of an employee of a private corporation and the freedom of speech rights of an employee of the government. The Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion in the Korb case reminds us of the famous dictum of Oliver Wendell Holmes in an 1892 Massachusetts case that involved a policeman who was a member of a "political committee" and who solicited money for that committee. The policeman was then discharged from the police department. The ex-policeman petitioned the court for restoration of his employment. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman (Rbs2.com, 2000). There are few employments for hire in which the employee does not agree to suspend his constitutional rights of free speech as well as of idleness by the implied terms of his contract. The employee cannot complain, because he freely accepts the employment on the terms which are offered to him.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) started in July 1935 to protect the rights of employees, rather, they be union or nor-union employees (Pozgar, 2012). The employees are protected under the Act or may employ in bubble-like, rigorous goings-on in situations other than the customary union organizations and cooperative bargaining. The National Labor Relations Board regulates the employers from interfering with the rights of the employees to implement or organize and join with a groups that offers assists with collective bargaining purposes like organization union or joining one (Pozgar, 2012). The employer may not restrain, coerce or stop employees

2. Can an employer unilaterally impose a grooming rule over the objections of its employees or their bargaining agent?

The law supports the claim that employees have a right to access employees’ emails, although most employees are of the opinion that their employers should not access their emails. The courts have not found any reasonable expectation for the employees to have privacy in the same and therefore, they have always granted permission to the employers to keep an eye on the employees’ activities as well as reviewing it. In a case of Smith v. Pillsbury Co., the plaintiff had sued the employer on the ground that he had wrongfully discharged him after the employer intercepted an email message he considered inappropriate (Jennings, 2005). Smith being an at-will kind of employee, his suit centered on whether by being discharged, it went against Pennsylvania’s public policy thereby falling into the exemption under the general rule which indicate that employees who are employed on the at-will basis can have their employment terminated any time. The defendant was given motion from dismissal of the case since it failed to state a claim. The employer was therefore found not guilty of either invading the employees’ privacy or violating public policy when he terminated smith (Wolkinson & Block, 1996). The employer had created email communication system but had told the employees that it was privileged and confidential. The employer also informed the workforce that their emails would not be intercepted