Labor Law Midterm
What are the issues of the NLRB vs Washington Aluminum case?
- Can workers walk out without formalizing demands? - Are non-union workers covered by the NLRA? - Would a reasonable person act in this way? - Did the walkout arise from a labor dispute as described by §2(9) of the NLRA? - Did the employer discharge the employees in violation of §8(a)(1) of the NLRA? - Does §7 protect employees here?
What was the reasoning of the NLRB vs Washington Aluminum case?
- Concerted activity: activity by more than one Ee or one Ee acting on behalf of others. The act of concerted activity was the walkout. The act of them getting together to discuss working conditions. Acting for mutual aid and protection: for the benefit of the collective group. The Ees are protected before, after and while they bring the demands. It was appropriate for Ees to walk out immediately as a response to working conditions - Even if there were no formal demands, the Er knew of the concerted activity and knew of the problems at hand
What are the holdings of the Jones & Laughlin case?
- Congress constitutionally exercised its power to regulate interstate commerce by enacting the NLRA - The NLRA is a reasonable regulation of Er's property rights, therefore does not violate fifth amendment due process rights
What is the reasoning of the NLRB decision on T-Mobile USA?
- Despite the intention of the employer, the language and nature of the handbook was implicit of restricting employees from §7 rights. (secrecy, discouraging communication that can be harmful to morale and forbid the discussion of wages, which can be useful for collective bargaining)
What was the employer's argument in the NLRB vs Timekeeping Systems case?
- In the employee guidebook, it says employees must treat others with respect and essentially be nice to others.
Why was the NLRB decision on Purple Communications important?
- It overruled the previous decision in Register Guard which outlawed employees from using work communication methods (ie. work email system) and work time to engage in §7 activities. The reasoning was because the board was focusing too much on employers' property rights and too little on the importance of email as a means of workplace communication, the Board failed to adequately protect employees' rights under the Act.
What are the facts of the NLRB vs Timekeeping Systems Co.?
- On December 1, the chief operational officer of Respondent, Markwitz, emailed the employees regarding "proposed plans" in the vacation policy and requested comments from the employees in person or via email. - Leinweber responded to Markwitz's proposal by pointing out a flaw in the logic. Markwitz did not respond. Leinweber then emailed the employees on December 5, discouraging the new vacation proposal by Markwitz. Leinweber's memo was effective in convincing other employees of the flaw in Markwitz's proposal. - Because of Leinweber's email to other employees that offended Markwitz, Markwitz emailed Leinweber to inform him that Leinweber could be terminated immediately for "failure to treat others with courtesy and respect", if he did not respond with a message explaining how his message hurts the company and could have been handled differently. The next day Leinweber was dismissed by Markwitz for failure to conjure a work appropriate memo.
What are the holdings of the NLRB vs Timekeeping Systems case?
- The Employer rule to treat other with courtesy and respect or face termination has language that implies Ees cannot engage with §7 rights (chilling effect). - The Er violates §8(a)(1) by firing the employee for §7 rights - communication via email can be considered the beginning of concerted activities for mutual aid and protection - Section 7 is broad enough that the Ee was allowed to disagree with the Er , even if it was a bit harsh. Concerted activity is protected unless found to be "so violent or of such serious character as to render the employee unfit for further service".
What was the employer's argument in the NLRB v Washington Aluminum case?
- The walkout did not arise from a "labor dispute" as described in §2(9) of the NLRA
What are the holdings of the NLRB vs Washington Aluminum case?
- The walkout was protected activity by §7 because the language of §7 is broad enough that it protects concerted activities whether they take place before, after, or at the same time such a demand (to unionize or make demands) is made - the NLRB was correct in prosecuting the Er for violating §8(a)(1) -§7 gives Ees the right to self-organization
What were the issues of the NLRB's decision on T-Mobile USA?
- Was the language of the Employee handbook discourage employees from engaging in §7 rights?
What are the facts of the NLRB vs Washington Aluminum case?
- seven unorganized machine shop employees as a group walked away from work without permission to protest cold working conditions. - the company was aware of the reason they were leaving -Employees who left were terminated
What limitations were set for the NLRB decision on Purple Communications?
- the employer could limit employee non-work related communication to breaks.
What is the issue at hand for the Lechemere Inc., v NLRB case?
- under the NLRA is it an 8(a)(1) violation for Lechmere to have a no solicitation policy that applies to all non-ees on his private property? -Do the facts here justify application of Babcock's inaccessibility exception?
What are the issues of the NLRB vs Timekeeping Systems case?
1. Did the Respondent violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by firing the employee, Lawrence Leinweber, for his concerted and protected activities? 2. Was the Respondent within his rights to fire the Charging Party for failure to treat others with courtesy and respect? 3. Was the Charging Party's activity protected by Section 7?
What was the main issue explored in the NLRB decision on Columbia University?
1. Should the Board modify or overrule Brown University, 342 NLRB 483 (2004), which held that graduate student assistants who perform services at a university in connection with their studies are not statutory employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act?
What are the reasonings of the Jones & Laughlin case?
1. the NLRA states that private sector employees have §7 rights to collectively bargain ie. join unions, and §8(a)(1,2,3) states that employers cannot interfere with, restrain, or discriminate against employees for exercising §7 rights 2. Congress' constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce extends to regulating conduct that directly burdens or obstructs interstate commerce or its free flow. 3. Even intrastate commerce that is closely related to interstate commerce and may burden interstate commerce. If company involved in intrastate commerce is disrupting industrial peace, this may burden interstate commerce as well --> therefore congress had the right to enact the NLRA 4. The NLRA is a reasonable, not an arbitrary, regulation of the way Ers conduct their business because the NLRA protects the correlative rights of their employees to organize to improve their working conditions through collective negotiations toward a collective bargaining agreement. The NLRA does not compel either the Er or U to actually reach an agreement. Rather the NLRA is based on the theory that providing Ees with the right to engage in CB with the Er through their chosen union representative is likely to promote industrial peace.
What is a brief fact summary of the In re Oakwood Healthcare case?
A union (Plaintiff) argued that all charge nurses at Oakwood Heritage Hospital (Defendant) should be included in the bargaining unit, but Oakwood (Defendant) argued that among them were supervisors who should be excluded from the bargaining unit.
What was the reasoning for the NLRB decision on Lechemere Inc?
Because the employees do not reside on Lechmere's property, they are presumptively not "beyond the reach," of the union's message. The exception arose primarily because of employees that were inaccessible because of logging camps, mining camps, and mountain resort hotels. Section 7, entitling employees to form, join, or assist in labor organizations, does NOT protect nonemployee union organizers, except in rare cases where inaccessibility of employees makes ineffective reasonable attempts by nonemployees to communicate with them through usual channels - AKA the Babcock exception.
Section 2(11) of the NLRA
Definition of supervisor. The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, uses *independent judgment*
Who is excluded under Section 2(3) of the NLRA as an employee?
Does not include -agricultural laborers or individuals in the domestic service of any family or person at home, -any individual having the status of an independent contractor - *supervisor* -individuals employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act
Section 7 of the NLRA
Employees have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, and have the right to refrain from such activities
What was the reasoning for the NLRB v Exchange Parts case?
Ers statements interfered with, restrained, or coerced ee in the exercise of section 7 rights
What are the facts of the Jones & Laughlin case?
Facts: -Jones & Laughlin Co. manufactured steel products in Pennsylvania from materials brought in from other states, and shipped 75% of its products out of Pennsylvania - The NLRB held that Jones & Laughlin violated the NLRA by discharging employees for their union activities - The NLRB petitioned for enforcement by the Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the enforcement. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari (reversing the CCA decision)
What was the issue in the In re Oakwood Healthcare case?
For purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, are registered nurses who serve as charge nurses on a permanent basis supervisors, and in that capacity regularly assign other personnel to particular patients and use their own judgment in doing so, as opposed to those who take on the duties of charge nurses on a rotating basis?
What was the holding in the In re Oakwood Healthcare case?
For purposes of the National Labor Relations Act, registered nurses who serve as charge nurses on a permanent basis are supervisors, and in that capacity regularly assign other personnel to particular patients and use their own judgment in doing so, as opposed to those who take on the duties of charge nurses on a rotating basis.
What are the issues of the Jones and Laughlin case?
Issues: - Did Congress constitutionally exercise power to regulate interstate commerce in enacting the NLRA? - Does the NLRA violate Ers' constitutional rights of due process under the Fifth Amendment? ("Freedom of contract")
What rights does §4 of the Norris-Laguardia Act provide?
It allows workers to act singly or in concert by prohibiting employers from filing for injunctions for any of the following acts: (a) ceasing to perform work or to remain in any relation fo employment (b) becoming or remaining a member of any labor organization or employer organization, regardless of any yellow-dog contract previously made (c) paying, giving to, or withholding from any person participated or interested in such labor dispute (e) giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in any labor dispute (f)assembling peaceably to act or organize in promotion of their (employee) interests in a labor dispute
Why is the NLRB decision on Lechemere, Inc. significant?
It forbids nonemployee union organizers from soliciting support on private property, except in the case where no reasonable alternatives exist.
Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA
It is unfair labor practices for an employer to interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other to support it. Ers cannot prohibit Ees from conferring with him during work hours and persecute them for lost time or pay
Why was the NLRB decision on Columbia University significant?
It overruled the Brown University case that did not consider graduate student assistants as employees.
What was the decision for the NLRB v Exchange Parts case?
It was a violation of § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act for an employer, shortly before a representation election, to confer economic benefits on its employees for the purpose of inducing them to vote against the union
Section 1 of the NLRA
Justifies the existence of the NLRA. Without rights, there is a big inequality between Ees and Er. Rights to protect Ees safeguards commerce and promotes the flow of commerce. --> restoring the equality of bargaining power between Ees and the Er. Sometimes it's NECESSARY to allow labor organizations to disrupt/interfere with employer's activities & the flow of commerce to help assure the rights of the employees.
§1 of Norris-Laguardia Act (1976)
No court has jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in case involving or growing out of a labor dispute
What was held and the reasoning of the NLRB v Gissel Packing case?
That §8(a)(c) does not protect the employer in this case. Employers cannot express any views, argument, or opinion of the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act The employer didn't have a good enough argument to say they were doomed because the union hadn't even presented demands yet. There was no evidence to come to such conclusory statements
Section 3(a) of the NLRA
The NLRB consists of five members, five-year terms. The president designates one person to be chairman of the board.
What happened with the Hoffman Plastic v NLRB case?
The NLRB found that Hoffman Plastic violated §8(a)(3) for the unlawful firing of union supporters, including worker Jose Castro. Usually, the company would owe the workers back pay and reinstation for violating §8(a)(3), but the Supreme Court found that Hoffman Plastic did not have to provide backpay because Jose Castro was in violation of IRCA for working illegally in the U.S. in the first place.
What were the decision and the reasoning for the NLRB decision on Northwestern University?
The board unanimously decided football players receiving grant-in-aid scholarships did not classify as employees under the NLRA. They did not believe asserting jurisdiction over a single team in the NCAA league would promote labor stability throughout the league.
What rights does §2 of the Norris-Laguardia Act provide?
The right for the individual unorganized worker to have freedom of full association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and can do so without interference or coercion of the employers of labor or their agents -ability to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection
Section 2(9) of the NLRA
The term "labor dispute" includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, maintaining, or changing terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee (doesn't give timeline of when all this needs to happen)
Section 2(12) of the NLRA
The term "professional employee" means: (a) any employee engaged in work that is predominantly intellectual, involves consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance, outputs cannot be standardized, requires knowledge in advanced type of field of science (b) any employee who has completed the courses of specialized intellectual instruction and study described, and is performing related work under supervision of a professional person to qualify himself to become a professional employee
Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA
Unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of §7 rights
What was the issue in the NLRB v Gissel Packing case?
Whether §8(a)(c) protects employers speech in this case
Section 2(3) of the NLRA
broad definition of employee. The term "employee" shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA
it is ULP for an employer to discriminate against hiring an employee or determine term of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership of a labor organization.
Section 8(a)(5) of the NLRA
it is ULP for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of the employees
What rights does §3 of the Norris-Laguardia Act provide?
made it illegal for employers or employees to make agreements that makes employees promise not to join, remain, or become a member of any labor organization or of any employer organization (Yellow-dog contracts)
What was the main purpose of the Norris-Laguardia Act and its main impacts?
purpose: to put a stop to anti-labor injunctions Impacts: outlawed yellow-dog contracts, prohibited ex-parte injunctions (not giving the employer a voice)
Section 9(a) of the NRLA
representatives designated or selected for collective bargaining by the majority of the Ees, shall be the exclusive representatives of the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to conditions of employment
What was the reasoning for the NLRB decision on Columbia University?
the student assistants are covered by the Act because of the broad language of Section 2(3), which provides in relevant part that "[t]he term 'employee' shall include any employee," subject to certain exceptions--none of which address students employed by their universities
What does the Norris-Laguardia Act NOT protect against?
unfair labor practices
NLRB v Exchange Parts question
was the announcement of the birthday holiday, grant, overtime, and vacation benefits a violation of 8a1 by inducing the ees to vote against the union or was it protected by 8c?