Introduction
Unions play a crucial role in the welfare of employees in all companies. It is the role of unions to oversee that all the employees are treated equally and have their rights respected by the management. Also, the unions come up with solutions to improve the working conditions. Additionally, unions actions can be visualized through fair wages to employees, healthy and safe working conditions, and fair treatment of the employees. The paper will present the rule of law, give analysis, and determine the results the best results of NLRB. However, some employees can work comfortably without joining the trade unions.
Rule of Law
In this case study, the AFL-CIO union has used 230 non-employees union members to distributes leaflets in world tea and Coffee parking lot. This event was held in a parking lot owned by World Coffee and Tea. After attempts after putting flyers and handbills on cars, they are kicked off by World Coffee and Tea managers and file their grievances to National Labor Relations Board ( NLRB).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Unlike employees in a union, the non-unionized employees don’t have a union to bargain for their representation. The National Labor Relations Board allows non-unionized employees to air their grievances two major ways. The first means is through concerted action, using concerted activity the employees can use concerted action to unite all the employees and demand a right from the employer (Fischl, 1989) . As long as the demanding focus on the benefit of all the employees an employer has no obligation to fire the employees. Also, the National Labor Relation Board provides for the establishment of employee committees which consist of management representation and employee’s representative. The two regularly meet to discuss the interest of the employees. Also, the employees have the right to either join a labor union or decide not to join one.
Conferring to the guidelines provided by NLRB, the employers are not allowed to stop employees from dispensing union literature during off hours and free areas from work setting such as parking lots. In a case similar to this one, a judge decided to rule in favor of the union and immediately ordered the employers to stop preventing the employees distribute the union literature in a parking lot (Fischl, 1989) . The board confirmed to be responsible for the prior case where the accessibility to practically express alternative means to exercise their rights was inhibited. In our case, the decision made by the board that there was constrained accessing the employees can be seen as misinterpretation and inappropriate.
The union could assess the non-union employees by applying other means such as telephoning employees, advertising, visiting employees in their place of residence, and also placing signs in public properties. The union does not present any obstacle that barred them from interaction with non-union employees, and the union made a fault by accusing the employer of unfair labor treatment of obstructing the non-employee union members off the premises (Fischl, 1989) . There, it can be concluded that the union didn’t follow the law by first finding other means of assessing the employees and the ruling should be in favor of the World Tea and Coffee company. In a similar case, the employer had to stop preventing the union organizers from going to the business parking lot to show their grievances ( McCormick, 2017). The union does not present any obstacle that barred them from interaction with non-union employees.
Analysis
In the case study AFL-CIO ( union) and World Tea and Coffee both parties conflict on who is right. Also, although there was an advert in a local newspaper, the employees showed no interest in joining the union which is part of their rights. The AFL-CIO union are using non-employee members with consulting the employers to solicit to their employees. Because the union is using non-employees, the NLRB should deny their grievances. World Tea and Coffee has many times kicked off the AFL-CIO after many unsuccessful attempts to recruit the non-union employees to the company. The company has a legal obligation to give the employees an opportunity to listen to the union and make a decision if they want to join the union (Booysen, Combs, & Lillevik, 2016) . According to the case study, the company did not receive any concern of employees need to join the labor union, and the flyers were taken from the cars in the parking lot owned by the World Tea and Coffee.
There are better ways to express their grievances rather than going to the employers parking lot and solicit the literature of their employees. Regarding another case study, the supreme court ruled out that employer has the right to prevent non-employee union organizers to dispense leaflets on private property in the union has a better way of expressing their grievances. One fault identified is that the non-employee union were petitioning with the knowledge that they didn’t have a consensus with the employee (Booysen, Combs, & Lillevik, 2016) . Therefore, the employer felt that the non-employees did not follow the policy which restricted non-employee not to be on the premises of the company.
Section 7 of National labor and Relation Act outlines that employees have the right to join a union and also the right to refrain from engaging in one. In complicated cases, the NLRA has a requirement to balance the section 7 rights with the employer’s property right (Fischl, 1989) . Usually, the employers have a right to prevent the non-employee organizers from trespassing to his property such as the parking lot. The right can only be broken when other channels to engage with the employer have failed. Also, it must be noted that the employer cannot discriminate against the union organizer and in turn favor individual who doesn’t belong to a union.
Other forms of encouraging the non-unionized employee to join unions should be used instead of the union repeating the same procedure which the company can see as disruption of its daily activities. Getting the employees during their off-work time an encouraging them to join the union is a better approach. Also, posters in public places would be better where the non-unionized employees can see the benefits of joining the union (Booysen, Combs, & Lillevik, 2016) . Also, after several attempts of the union to distribute the leaflets in the parking lot, the non-unionized member should have shown interest if they wanted to join the union. Additionally, I think that through concerted activity and employees committee the non-unionized grievances are expressed to the maximum.
The Results and Which Party Should Win the Case
The employer should win the case. The employees have denied joining the union. The company had all the rights to kick off the union organizers from its premises. The decision made by the employer was right since the company employees had not contacted the union about their interest in joining the labor union (Fischl, 1989) . If the company employees had contacted the labor union their interest in joining the union, then, they would win the case. Since the case study does not outline that the employees had an interest in joining the union, the case ruling in favor of the union is not justifiable. Generally, the union has no authorization to trespass the company premises to give the grievances of the employees who are not even interested in joining the union.
Should be the Store Owners Prohibit Non-Employee Union, Organizers
Yes. The presence of a gazette advert indicates lack of interest of employees to be in a trade union. Therefore, the union distributing leaflets in the parking slot can be seen as a disruption of the store’s activity. The laws provide the guidelines which should be followed in such cases. The employers should be conversant with the policies that allow the prohibition of the union participation in stores. Also, since the union has made several attempts in distributing the leaflets in the parking slots without bearing fruits from the non-union employees, it adds a proof the employees are satisfied with their employer. The store owners should recommend the union to use other methods to attract the non-union employees to the labor unions rather than continuing disrupting the activities of the store.
Conclusion
According to many cases obtained and analyzed, World Tea and Coffee Company always win the case. There are many efforts before where world Tea and Coffee company kicked out the AFL-CIO union from its premises after they were unsuccessful in recruiting non-union employees into the union. The supreme court always ruled company favor stating that the company has the right to prevent non-employee union coordinators to distribute leaflets in private premises if they have other means communicating to the employees and the company. The case study did not prove that the employees were denied the right to join a labor union but rather, the union began soliciting after they were told not to.
The union should have used other methods to attracts the non-unionized employees into the union. These methods include adverts and establishing personal contacts. Also, after several attempts of the union to distribute the leaflets in the parking lot, the non-unionized member should have shown interest if they wanted to join the union. The National Labor Relations Board allows non-unionized employees to air their grievances two major ways. The first means is through concerted action, using concerted activity the employees can use concerted action to unite all the employees and demand a right from the employer. As long as the demanding focus on the benefit of all the employees an employer has no obligation to fire the employees.
Also, the National Labor Relation Board provides for the establishment of employee committees which consist of management representation and employee’s representative. Also, the union distributing leaflets in the parking slot can be seen as a disruption of the store’s activity. The store owners have the rights to stop the union from distributing leaflets for the maximum operation of the store. Additionally, I think that through concerted activity and employees committee the non-unionized employees’ grievances are expressed to the maximum.
Reference
Booysen, L. A., Combs, G., & Lillevik, W. (2016). Brazilian, South African and US work environments: A comparative analysis in equal opportunity, the diversity management, and the inclusion practices. A Research Handbook of the International and Comparative Perspectives on the Diversity Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK , 89-131.
Fischl, R. M. (1989). Self, Others, and the Section 7: Mutualism and the Protected Protest Activities Under National Labor Relations Act. Columbia Law Review , 89 (4), 789-865.
McCormick, J. (2017). Understanding the European Union: a concise introduction . Palgrave.
