Bad Employee Behavior Versus Anti Union Efforts

Hostile Work Environment The term "hostile work environment" has a wide range of meanings and definitions. Obviously, how precisely it is defined would vary based on the role or position of the person involved, their opinion about things employer rights, employee rights and unions and one's general feeling about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to general or work-based interactions with others.

Others still may cast too wide a net when they define the word "hostile." Regardless, litigation can and does happen relative to these events, either isolated or continuous, and union-related situations are often decided by the NLRB. The author has been asked to find a NLRB case that involves a hostile work environment, suggest risk management strategies that could mitigate or prevent situations from becoming lawsuits or NRLB cases and offer other relevant analysis.

The American Showa/Teamsters case proves that even if an employee provably and admittedly engages in improper behaviors that could or should be construed as hostile or otherwise problematic, going against someone for forming a union rarely ends well for the business that acts against the same. Analysis The case in question relates to a man named Hankins. Overall, Hankins had had a very good work history working for a company that supplied parts for Honda vehicles.

However, things started to flare up a bit due to a number of factors. One of those factors was that Hankins knew full well (more on this in a minute) that Honda was unionized and the company he worked for shared a lot of parallels with Honda beyond the fact that Honda was one of their main clients. Indeed, the company's employees even wore uniforms that were very similar to Honda's. Hankins would routinely engage in union-creation efforts at his new employer.

At first, however, this was not a major problem. Things changed, however, with a few events that happened over time. First of all, an acquaintance of Hankins apparently did work for him on his car or something and Hankins had apparently agreed with the man to render payment in the form of a case of beer. Rather than give the beer to Hankins outside of work, Hankins brought the beer to work and stored it in the break room.

When he came back to where he put it, it had been locked away in a cooler. He was approached by his manager and told that the beer should not be on company property but Hankins was not punished. However, Hankins removed the beer upon request. Not long after that, there was a discussion about the beer and there was apparently some question about whether a vendor employee, a woman named Smith, had been involved in the temporary confiscation of the beer.

Supposedly she was not, but there was an encounter where Hankins bumped into Smith rather hardly and Smith took umbrage with being jostled like that. Hankins apologized at the time but apparently thought that Smith was overreacting a bit. However, his stance softened later and he approached Smith to give a "better" apology. Smith, however, was less than receptive. Not long into the exchange, she said the conversation was "over" but Hankins would not let it lie for a bit.

Eventually, he acquiesced and stopped trying to talk to Smith further about the bump but he had to be told several times. While it was not immediately made clear to Hankins, he was transferred due to an apparent need within the company but he was eventually summoned to be punished for the exchange with Smith. He was sent home for three days. However, a manager named Westover summoned him in during his suspension, much to the chagrin of another manager named Kerschner. This meeting led to the termination of Mr.

Hankins on three overall grounds. For one, Mr. Hankins had apparently worked for Honda in the past and did not indicate as such on his job application. It came out as part of this discussion that Hankins had actually quit Honda voluntarily rather than go before a peer review board to see if he would keep his job. There was apparently fine print on the application that mandated all employment be included on the application. However, Hankins did not read it, or so he said.

Either way, he did not comply with the details of the application. He was also fired for threatening Ms. Smith (the person he bumped in the break room) and for engaging in union-organizing activities. In the span of one conversation, he noted that he was doing no such thing (a lie) and then conceded that he had. In the end, the NLRB dropped the hammer on the employer. They did concede that Hankins did not reveal his Honda employment despite the notes about it being required on the job application.

Hankins also was a prior-convicted felon and also did not reveal that on his application. However, the NLRB shot that down as a legitimate reason to fire him given that the testimony about that being the reason or not being the primary reason for the firing was inconsistent throughout the testimony during the trial and the actions that preceded it, including the actual firing.

As for the accusations from Smith, it was concluded that the investigation into that situation and the associated suspension (and eventual firing) was woefully "shallow" and that could not stand as a reason for Hankins being fired due to lack of credible evidence.

As for his union organizing activities, the general conclusion that the main axe the employer had to grind against Hankins was that and that alone and that they used other means (the Smith allegations and investigation as well as the job application) to buttress their reasons for firing him.

They NLRB weighed in that the union organizing activities could not be used as a reason to fire him regardless and that even if that reason was not overtly stated, it was certainly a factor regardless of whether it was stated or not. The NLRB asserted that Smith should get his job back given the totality of the circumstances (NLRB, 2016). Hankins was not a saint. He did obscure his job history and felon status and he obviously did not handle the situation with Smith all that well.

However, the employer clearly wanted an excuse to get rid of him and stretched their motives and/or the evidence to get rid of him. As for what the employer should have done differently, there are three risk strategies that should be employed. First, the job application should clearly state in regular-sized print what is required in terms of job history. For example, if they want job history over the last ten years and they want nothing excluded, they should say so.

As for felon status, that is a bit touchy right now when it comes to governmental review of the practice (including the EEOC) but the employer should ask for criminal record status as much as they are allowed to do (EEOC, 2016). A second risk reduction strategy that needs to be put in place is that investigations should be timely,.