Mgmt375 Legitimate Picketing or Illegal Secondary Boycott Case study Paper

Description

Read and analyze EACH the case study problem and make recommendations to resolve it.

Your Dropbox assignment should show original thinking based on analysis of the case study problem and the use of solutions and terminology found in our course studies.

The case study assignment should be approximately 4 pages long and use the MLA writing format.



CASE STUDY 9-2


Questions

1. Which employer was
the primary employer? The secondary employer?

2. The union
distinguishes between displaying a stationary banner and picketing (where union
members move about, carrying wooden signs). Analyze this argument.

3. What actions would
you recommend the secondary employer involved in this case take to minimize any
adverse consequences of the union’s handbilling and banner activity?

4. Does the union’s
handbilling, giant rat, and banner activity represent an unfair labor practice
violation under the LMRA? Why or why not? If so, what would be an appropriate
remedy?



CASE STUDY 9-4


Questions

1. Does the work
stoppage by the truck drivers in this case represent an economic strike or an
unfair labor practice strike?

2. What is the
difference between the reinstatement rights of an unfair labor practice striker
and an economic striker?

3. Did the employer
unlawfully discharge the four truck drivers who never returned to work? Explain
your reasoning.

CASE STUDY
9-2
Legitimate Picketing? Or Illegal Secondary Boycott?
The construction union had signed a “master agreement” with most of the contractors in the area.
However, a few contractors remained nonunion and offered significantly lower pay and benefits
to their workers. The union decided to publicize these lower wages in order to put economic
pressure on these contractors and to “shame” the companies into accepting the master agreement—
or to at least offer similar pay and benefits. Thus, the union was engaged in a primary labor dispute
with these nonunion subcontractors who refused to compensate workers according to area labor
standards. The union decided to start with the House of Cards Construction (HCC).
To publicize the primary labor dispute with HCC, the union on eight occasions set up a banner
and engaged in handbilling near the Caring Hearts Hospital, where the contractor was working as
part of a building expansion. The union erected a banner that was 4 feet high and 16 feet long on
a public sidewalk facing the street within 100 feet of the main hospital entrance. Twice the union
also put a 15-foot high “inflatable rat” on a flatbed truck (with the name of the contractor across
the rat’s stomach) and parked the truck next to the banner on a city street. The union was not the
bargaining representative of any employees at the hospital. The banner read “Shame on House of
Cards Construction” in large letters, with the words “Labor Dispute” in smaller letters on each
side. At each display two or three union representatives held up the banner in a fixed position but
did not move it during the display period. The union representatives also gave out handbills to
anyone who approached them and asked about the demonstration. Union members also passed out
leaflets with the heading, “HCC: Rat Employer” asking people to complain to hospital
administrators about their use of nonunion construction labor. The handbill read, in part, “Shame
on House of Cards Construction for Desecration of the American Way of Life” and included a
drawing of a rat gnawing on an American flag. The handbill went on to state that the union had a
dispute with HCC and other nonunion contractors based on their failure to respect area labor
standards. The leaflet criticized the hospital for hiring HCC to perform a particular work project.
Union members holding the banner and passing out the handbills did not chant, yell, or march back
and forth. At no time was anyone prevented from entering the hospital.
House of Cards Construction filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB alleging a
violation of Section 8 (b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). HCC argued
that the union’s action of placing individuals at or near the entrances to the hospital was illegal
picketing and thus should be barred. Showing the inflatable rat and displaying a banner was the
equivalent of picketing, and the display and holding of leaflets directed at pedestrians and motorists
approaching the hospital was illegal picketing. Further, the conduct was confrontational and
constituted illegal secondary activity because the union was attempting to coercive the neutral
hospital to not do business with a particular firm.
HCC further argued that the information on the banner and leaflets was “deceptive,”
“dangerous,” and “disturbing,” It was deceptive in that the information did not state that the union
had no dispute with the Caring Hearts Hospital. Rather it was intended to mislead the public into
thinking that the union had a labor dispute with the hospital regarding its treatment of hospital
employees. The initials “HCC” and “CHH” are similar and easily confused by the public. This
deception could have a negative economic impact on the hospital and should be prohibited. It was
dangerous because ill patients might think that hospital employees are striking, and these patients
might suffer from staying home and forgoing treatment. Finally, the inflatable rat would be
“disturbing” to patients when they looked out their hospital windows. Courts have upheld limits
on picketing near customer entrances, especially where quiet and tranquility are necessary, as at a
courthouse or library; a hospital certainly falls into this category. See Carpenters & Joiners Union
v. Ritters Cafe, 315 U.S. 722 (1942); Kulish v. Policemen’s Benevolent Association, 84 LRRM
2143 (1973); Cox v. Louisiana, 37 U.S. 536 (1965).
The union’s defense argued that Section 8 (b)(4) of the LMRA is not intended to prohibit the
display of banners during a labor dispute. The union cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision
in DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988), which
upheld the use of handbilling and instructed the NLRB to be careful in applying the statutory
language of Section 8 (b)(4) so as not to unduly restrict the lawful exercise of free speech. The
union argued that holding up a banner, giving out handbills, and even using an inflatable rat to
publicize an ongoing labor dispute is not threatening. Nor are these activities as intrusive as actual
picketing (with moving crowds of picketers carrying wooden signs). The union noted that it did
not block any entrance and it knew of no patients who decided not to seek treatment as the result
of its banner. The union clearly stated that its dispute was with HCC and it merely used creative
means to publicize its dispute. Finally, with major construction activity going on as a new wing is
added to the hospital, all is not serene and quiet on hospital property. The union was not boisterous
and did not add significantly to the noise of the construction.
Questions
1. Which employer was the primary employer? The secondary employer?
2. The union distinguishes between displaying a stationary banner and picketing (where union
members move about, carrying wooden signs). Analyze this argument.
3. What actions would you recommend the secondary employer involved in this case take to
minimize any adverse consequences of the union’s handbilling and banner activity?
4. Does the union’s handbilling, giant rat, and banner activity represent an unfair labor practice
violation under the LMRA? Why or why not? If so, what would be an appropriate remedy?
CASE STUDY
9-4
The Right to Strike
Seven of the employer’s 11 concrete truck drivers met several times during the week of
September 16 to discuss their current wage rates, the lack of a medical insurance plan, and
whether they should consider joining a union. After meeting with a representative of the national
truck drivers’ union, four of the seven drivers signed union authorization cards. Employee
Santos, one of the card signers, wrote a letter that the seven employees presented to the
company’s plant manager on Friday, September 20. The letter stated, in part, “Today all
employees wish to express a silent strike in pursuance of the right that our salaries be increased
to $15.75 per hour. We will not work today … until an accord is reached.”
Later that Friday morning, the company president met with seven employees and told them
that the company was in no position to give any wage increase; however, steps were already
underway to establish a medical insurance plan by the end of the year. The seven employees met
outside the plant and decided the company’s position was unacceptable. The company president
stated that the board of directors would be meeting the following day (Saturday) to consider the
matter. The seven employees continued their walkout during the rest of Friday.
The board of directors met on Saturday and calculated the annual cost of the employees’ wage
demand to be $308,000. The board of directors found this unacceptable and decided to replace the
seven drivers rather than agree to increase wages. Later on Saturday, the plant manager offered
driver positions to three individuals who already had job applications on file with the company.
All three applicants accepted the job offer and were scheduled to begin work the following week.
On Monday, the seven drivers who had walked out on Friday returned to the company but
remained outside the plant entrance. Upon learning that the seven drivers had not reported for work
at 8 A.M. on Monday morning
but were instead congregating in front of the plant, the company president prepared a letter
that was given to each of the seven drivers outside the company’s entrance at 9:30 on Monday
morning. The letter referred to the walkout on the previous Friday and stated in relevant part: “The
circumstances of having abandoned your work without first holding a dialogue, then bringing later
on some demands which we cannot face economically at this time, in addition to your refusal to
work if your conditions are not met exactly the way [you] stated them, we have to interpret it as a
resignation from your job, leaving us without alternatives and unfortunately we have to accept
your decision effective today, Monday, September 23.” The letter went on to state that the Friday
work stoppage forced the company to fill some vacancies and curtail its operations in order to
recover in part from the losses it had suffered.
After receiving the letters, the seven employees left the plant to attend a meeting with a union
representative. Sometime later on that Monday, three of the employees returned to the plant and
requested reinstatement. The company reinstated the three drivers to their former jobs. The Union
filed an unfair labor practice on behalf of the remaining four truck drivers, alleging that each had
been unlawfully discharged in violation of the LMRA, as amended.
Questions
1. Does the work stoppage by the truck drivers in this case represent an economic strike or an
unfair labor practice strike?
2. What is the difference between the reinstatement rights of an unfair labor practice striker and
an economic striker?
3. Did the employer unlawfully discharge the four truck drivers who never returned to work?
Explain your reasoning.
The Case Study Guidelines and Grading are available for you to view.
The Guidelines are intended to be a springboard for more extensive
analysis and not a template where you fill in the blanks.
For each case study problem assigned, you will read and analyze the
case study problem and make recommendations to resolve it. Your
Dropbox assignment should show original thinking based on analysis of
the case study problem and the use of solutions and terminology found
in our course studies.
The case study assignment should be approximately 4 pages long and
use the MLA writing format. The rubric below is intended to be a
springboard for more extensive analysis and not just a template where
you fill in the blanks.
Case Study Rubric
Criteria
Text,
Analysis,
Resource
s,
Complian
ce


Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
12 points
8 points
4 points
0 points
The
assignment
submitted to
the dropbox
provided all
applicable
text
knowledge.
The
assignment
contained a
critical
analysis of
the
assignment
content that
also
provided an
example of


The
assignment
submitted to
the Dropbox
provided
most of the
applicable
text
knowledge.
The
assignment
contained a
critical
analysis of
the
assignment
content that
also
provided an
example of


The
assignment
submitted to
the Dropbox
provided
some of the
applicable
text
knowledge.
The
assignment
contained a
critical
analysis of
the
assignment
content that
also
provided an
example of


The
assignment
submitted to
the Dropbox
did not
provide
significant
amounts of
the
applicable
text
knowledge.
The
assignment
did not
contain a
critical
analysis of
the
assignment


Grammar
and
Spelling
MLA
Writing
Format
and
Originalit
y
Overall
Score
comprehens
ion.
The
assignment
included
outside
resources
that were
properly
cited.
The varying
degrees of
compliance
within this
level’s
criteria will
determine
the points
within this
level’s
range.


comprehens
ion.
The
assignment
included
outside
resources
that were
properly
cited.
The varying
degrees of
compliance
within this
level’s
criteria will
determine
the points
within this
level’s
range.


comprehens
ion.
The
assignment
included
outside
resources
that were
properly
cited.
The varying
degrees of
compliance
within this
level’s
criteria will
determine
the points
within this
level’s
range.


content or
an example
of
comprehens
ion.
The
assignment
did not
include
outside
resources
that were
properly
cited.
The varying
degrees of
compliance
within this
level’s
criteria will
determine
the points
within this
level’s
range.
4 points
3 points
2 points
1 points
The assignment has
almost no issues,
but exhibited correct
spelling, sentence
structure, and
followed the rules of
good grammar.
The assignment has
a couple of issues,
but mostly exhibited
correct spelling and
sentence structure
and followed the
rules of good
grammar.
The assignment has
several issues and
does not exhibit
correct spelling,
sentence structure,
or did not follow the
rules of good
grammar.
The assignment has
significant issues
and does not exhibit
correct spelling,
sentence structure,
and did not follow
the rules of good
grammar.
4 points
3 points
2 points
1 points
The assignment
followed MLA style
of writing, was 4 full
pages in length, and
no more than 30%
of the content was
devoted to citations.
The assignment
followed MLA style
of writing, was 4 full
pages in length, and
no more than 35%
of the content was
devoted to citations.
The assignment did
not follow MLA style
of writing, was 4 full
pages in length, and
no more than 40%
of the content was
devoted to citations.
The assignment did
not follow MLA style
of writing, was not 4
full pages in length,
and more than 40%
of the content was
devoted to citations.
15 or more pts.
9 or more pts.
3 or more pts.
0 or more pts.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

We offer the bestcustom writing paper services. We have done this question before, we can also do it for you.

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.