In response to the statements provided by the employer, it is observed that there is some mark of coercion and threatening accusations made in these statements, based upon Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA. These statements constitute a threat because they demonstrate that the company was do attempts to watch employees regarding the coupler vote by making operable threats regarding existing benefit packages. This is an fundamental consideration to make because it represents a means by which the organization sought to overcome the influence of the union by attempting to dissuade employees from voting iodin path regarding the vote.
2. Do the employer statements constitute an unlawful promise of benefits in encroachment of Section 8(a) (1) or the act? Why or why not?
The statements made by the employer appear to coincide with an unlawful promise of benefits, and therefore, are unacceptable in relation to the act. The arche typecast of positive coercion is addressed in the case study, and these actions directly influence the manner in which employees may view the union and its possible entrance into the organization.
In this context, the company does not take a right to actively or even passively tweet employees into making a ratiocination on one side or another, as this should be an independent decision that is left in the hands of employees without any type of influence. This is an important factor in demonstrating the value that is placed upon organizations and their ability to coerce employees to make decisions in one way or another, and how this type of behavior is unacceptable in all cases.
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?
The statements made by supervisor Bates appear to be non-threatening and...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .
No comments:
Post a Comment