VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 5 POSTED ON: 1/23/2013
Case Analysis FACTS – Identify the essential facts that give rise to the dispute. Caveat: assuming facts not stated ISSUE(s) – The question to be decided. May be broad or narrow. RULE [of Law] – The applicable LMRA or negotiated contract language APPLICATION – Apply the appropriate rule(s) or law or contract language to the specific facts of the case. CONCLUSION – Opinion of outcome (determination of issue(s)) based on application of law to facts. State with reason your agreement or disagreement with the judge/board/arbitrator’s ruling. MANAGEMENT – What management lessons can be learned from this case? What managerial practices could be implemented to prevent similar cases from occurring? Case #1 Improper Interference with Union’s Freedom of Speech FACTS • Employer operated the retail mall • Union business agents were distributing handbills in the mall • Security asked union agents to cease activities and to vacate the premisies • Union business agents were arrested for tresspass • Solicitation by charitable, civic, and other reasons had been permitted in the mall Case #1 Improper Interference with Union’s Freedom of Speech Issue • Was this an act of discrimination? Rule of Law • LMRA Section 8(a)(1) Case #1 Improper Interference with Union’s Freedom of Speech Application • The mall management interfered with the union agents rights to collectively engage in union business for mutual aid and protection. Conclusion • The NLRB ruled in favor of the union. Case #1 Improper Interference with Union’s Freedom of Speech Managerial Implications • Know the law. • Treat union’s no different from other solicitor’s if you own a mall.
Pages to are hidden for
"Case _1 Improper Interference with Union's Freedom of Speech "Please download to view full document