Columbia Southern University
Claims and Counterclaims
Generally, the claims by the union are more persuasive than the counterclaims that were made by the company. This is because the union had credible arguments relating to the actual difficulties that the people were experiencing. For instance, the Union charged those who targeted the company through inappropriate labor approaches.
In 1975, December 5, particularly, it arranged for a meeting with the company workers in attempts to acquire official cards for the company janitors. As result, 6 out of 11 workers benefitted from the program. Three days later, the organizer of the union, Schimmel Orval, reminded the wealth manager of the employer, Hall Thomas, to recognize the union as an advocate of the rights to bargain (Ivancevich, 2009).
The fact that Hall distanced himself from those matters and directed the Union to Alton Carl, the vice president, gave it more opportunity to persuade the workers. The company, on the other hand, had little chance to persuade the workers due to their own making. For instance, when its maintenance head, Melton Larry, interrogated several and threatened several workers he only played to the union’s advantage.
This is because the employees felt unsafe from that approach given that the union employed a friendly criterion. Eventually, the company realized that the approach was not appropriate and replaced Melton with Nord Leo in December 24. While the company decided to cover the workers’ medical expenses, its strategy must have been to deceive them with another plan underway.
On the representational election’s day the newly-elect head of maintenance, Nord Leo, held a talk with Snow Cecil. He told him that the free apartments for the helpers of the janitors would be taken away by the employer if the union became victorious in the next election. He would also demote the leading janitors to their apartment’s lower bedrooms.
As a result, the union lost to the company by a two-vote margin on the same day. This, therefore, prompted the union to file several cases against the company. Its members also argued that they should not be allowed to hold a re-election.
Nord’s statement to Snow on the Election Day was a threat. This can be argued in a number of ways. The fact that the company won on that day also implies that the statement was the turning. Probably, Snow was going to vote for the union, but had his mind changed by Nord’s statement. If Snow held his earlier opinion the score would have been a tie, which could lead to a re-election.
Perhaps, Snow was a janitor, in which he would have suffered from Nord’s “prediction.” If Nord was a member of the union then his statement could be considered credible. However, it cannot be considered a prediction because the election outcome was deeply rooted in it (Ivancevich, 2009).
While the union greatly believed that it had the claim for the majority status, the company deployed a different approach to the matter. As such the company was not obligated to accept the claim. Even though the union had issued the cards to the workers, the company did not believe that it was an illegal approach.
In fact, the company was adamant that it did not accept the signing of the employees’ authorization cards that took place in 1975. It also challenged the union that the exercise did not even receive the NLRB’s verification. According to the members of the company, the union was only seeking the rights of representation after losing a fair election (Ivancevich, 2009).
If the union believed that it had the majority of support then it would have…