Section 4: Legal Case Study

Words: 608
Pages: 3

Do these employer statements constitute an unlawful threat in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA? Why or why not?
• Yes, under Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA threatening employees with adverse consequences, such as loss of benefits if they support a union is not allowed. NLRB guarantees workers the right to join unions without fear of management retaliation. Employees have the right to self-organize, to form or to join and assist labor organizations without problems from the employers. Employers in the case study interfered, and coercion directly against the union in attempt to deter the employees to vote for the union.

2. Do the employer statements constitute an unlawful promise of benefits in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the act?
…show more content…
The employer states that the union will affect the benefits currently provided. The employer is threatening and forcing the employee to not go with the union. The employer is trying to directly influence the vote of the employee by diminishing the view of the union, and threatening to cut the current benefit packages.
3. Did the questioning or statements by either supervisor Bates or supervisor Lofton constitute unlawful interrogation in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the act? Why or why not?
• Yes it was unlawful interrogation. As in the first question the supervisors were trying to get the employees to vote against the union. These supervisors were using scare tactics when threatening employees about their wage and benefits. When the plant manager promised to make things better if the union wasn’t involved seemed to be a false promise. When “Supervisor Lofton further asked Rogers if he knew that if the union won he could lose his benefits and told him he should think twice about voting for the union” a message with a threat and a warning.
4. Should the NLRB give consideration to its “Totality of Conduct” doctrine in reaching a conclusion about the alleged violations in this case? Explain your