WINONA UNIVERSITY

Business Administration Department

Semester: __2____

Assignment for Course #: ____437_______

Course Name: ____________labor relations and collective

bargaining____________________________
Submitted to: Dr. Mussie Tessema

Submitted by: _______4/18/24________________

Due Date: _______4/21/24____________________

Assignment Title: ____Case #4: Unfair Labor Practice by an Employer

CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORSHIP: I certify that I am the author of this paper and

that any
assistance received in its presentation is fully acknowledged and disclosed in the paper. I
have
also cited any sources from which I used, data, ideas, or words, either quoted directly or
paraphrased. I also certify that this paper was prepared specifically for this course.

Student signature(s): Tristan Preiss

*******************
Professor’s grade on assignment:
Comments:
1.) Which, if any, of the employer’s actions might the court find violated the National
Labor Relations Act and therefore might cause the election to be set aside?

Several actions undertaken by the employer amid the unionization process could
potentially breach the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), outlined in the textbook on
page 361-370. Firstly, the distribution of a letter asserting that two-thirds of closed plants
in the state were unionized might be deemed coercive or misleading, impeding
employees' ability to make an unbiased decision regarding unionization. Similarly,
highlighting negative consequences of unionization through an article about Ford's
contract decision could be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate employees, a clear
violation of the NLRA. Moreover, relocating production to another plant without
explanation during the election period may insinuate potential job losses, thereby
influencing votes and violating NLRA's provisions against employer interference with
union activities. Further delaying negotiations with a client until after the election, despite
other issues, could create uncertainty about the company's stability, constituting
interference with employees' rights under the NLRA. Additionally, displaying posters and
distributing letters noting unionization of closed plants may foster a coercive atmosphere,
violating NLRA's provisions against employer interference. Expressing concerns about
labor problems and potential strikes to employees and customers and orchestrating a
visible customer inspection during the election period, could be perceived as attempts to
intimidate or coerce employees, prohibited by the NLRA. Together, these actions may
have infringed upon employees' NLRA rights, necessitating National Labor Relations
Board investigation, and potentially invalidating the election results.

2.) Recognizing that this election took place in 1995, do you think the court might find
that the employees could have seen through the employer’s tactics and voted the way
they wanted despite the employer’s actions?

Considering the 1995 context of the election, the court may ponder whether employees
could discern the employer's tactics and voting independently despite them. However, the
court's main concern would be whether the employer's actions unfairly influenced the
election outcome. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) aims to safeguard
employees' rights to decide on unionization freely, without employer coercion. Therefore,
the court would scrutinize whether the employer's tactics created a coercive environment
or violated employees' NLRA rights. The court's ruling would depend on whether the
employer's conduct breached the law, irrespective of employees' potential awareness of it.

3.) Would you have been swayed by the employer’s actions to the point you could not
have voted with “freedom of choice”?

I might have felt pressured by the employer's actions, especially if they created a tense
atmosphere or spread misleading information. These tactics could have made it difficult
for me to feel like I could make my own decision freely. The National Labor Relations
Act is meant to protect our rights to choose unions without feeling pressured by our
employer. If I felt like the employer's actions were influencing me too much, it might
have impacted my ability to vote with complete freedom of choice.