Labor Law -- Exam 1

CONDUCT THAT IS ILLEGAL:
Employer interference, restraint, or coercion directed against union or collective activity

CONDUCT THAT IS ILLEGAL
Employer discrimination against employees who take part in union or collective activities (Section 8(a)(3))

An undocumented worker can not collect back pay under the NLRA b/c the IRCA says they can't.

NEED?

Need ALL three things:1) 1 of 12 supervisory duties or effectively recommend (consistently give order)
2. Independent Judgment
3. In the interest of the employer

1.to hire, 2. transfer, 3. suspend, 4. lay off, 5. recall, 6. promote, 7. discharge, 8 assign, 9. reward, or 10 discipline other employees, or 11. responsibly to direct them, or 12. to adjust their grievances, or effectively recommend such action....

Independent Judgment is recommending actions, forming opinions, or making evaluations free from the control of others.

Judgment is not independent where it is dictated or controlled by a set of detailed instructions, such as company policies or rules, the verbal instructions of a higher level supervisor, or the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.

Supervisors can be excluded from the protections of the NLRA

Nonemployees may NOT solicit union support on private property, except in the case where no reasonable alternatives exist.

Employers may NOT prevent nonemployees from soliciting on public property.

§7 of the NLRA does not apply to nonemployee union organizers except when, "the inaccessibility of employees makes ineffective the reasonable attempts by nonemployees to communicate with them through the usual channels."

Cards stating that the employee authorized the union to represent him for collective bargaining purposes (and not to seek an election) were reliable enough to provide an alternate route to majority status, where a fair NLRB election could not be held or an election that was held was set aside b/c of election interference
with regard to the assertion of the constitutional right to free speech by one of the employers, his statements to the employees to the effect that the company was in a precarious financial condition and unionization would probably lead to a strike resulting in a plant shutdown, with the employees facing great difficulty in finding employment elsewhere, were properly held by the Board to constitute an election-voiding unfair labor practice, where the record supported a finding that the statements were not cast as a prediction of demonstrable economic consequences, but rather as a threat of retaliatory action;

Section 8(a)(5) prohibits the employer from refusing to recognize and bargain in good faith with a union that is the exclusive representative of employees