Can Companies Terminate Employees without Reason

Strike Case Study

1. If we do strike, I heard the company can hire new people to do our work. Will I lose my job?

So long as the strike is lawful, one cannot lose one’s job for striking.

2. I have a family and bills to pay. I heard there is a strike fund. Where does that money come from?

The money comes from contributions to the fund made by workers.

3. Bill looks to you for guidance. In a short paragraph, explain whether this is a good strategy. Under what provision would that be done? What is the likelihood that the union would win a case about the company’s bargaining conduct? Why?

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is responsible for investigating and adjudicating claims of unfair labor practices (ULPs). Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), it is illegal for employers to refuse to bargain in good faith with a union that represents their employees. If an employer is found to have committed a ULP, the NLRB can order them to take remedial action, such as negotiating in good faith with the union. In order for a ULP claim to be successful, the union must show that the employer's actions were motivated by bad faith or a desire to undermine the union's bargaining power. If the NLRB finds that an employer has committed a ULP, they can order the employer to take remedial action, such as negotiating in good faith with the union. In some cases, the NLRB may also order the employer to reinstate any workers who were unfairly fired during the course of the dispute.

Thus, an unfair labor practice claim with the Board about how they are refusing to negotiate a good strategy could be done under the provision that they are violating the National Labor Relations Act. If the union can show that the company's refusal to bargain is an act of interference, restraint, or coercion against employees in the exercise of their NLRA rights, then the union would likely win a case against the company.

4. Paula has explained strikes to the VPF before but realizes that it can be hard to remember which ones are legal and which are not. Briefly explain again whether this particular strike is legal and why.

A strike is legal – and therefore protected by the National Labor Relations Act – if the employees are striking for a valid reason, i.e., for an economic reason. The union in this case is preparing to strike for a fair contract, i.e., for an economic reason. Therefore, the strike is legal.

5. Briefly answer the VPF’s concern.

When two parties are in mediation, they often have different objectives. As a result, it is not uncommon for one side to feel that it has gotten the short end of the stick after an agreement is reached. However, there are steps that can be taken to help ensure that this does not happen. First, it is important to have a clear understanding of what each party wants to achieve. Second, each side should clearly communicate its objectives to the other party. Third, the mediator should be aware of the potential for one side to feel disadvantaged and should work to ensure that any agreement is fair. By taking these steps, it is possible to avoid leaving one side feeling stuck with something it does not want in mediation. Win-win solutions are possible but it requires one to reframe the problem situation so that it can be viewed positively rather than negatively.

6. Marley was told he would have a job by HR at the time of hiring. The company illegally fired him by not moving him to another position. He is a dues paying member and the Union is obliged to represent him. Paragraph, though not agreed to by the Union, should protect Marley’s employment, however, even though the new contract was not signed until after Marley’s job was ended.

7. Juan was told the company would see if they could keep him after the strike but gave no firm commitment. His job was not protected under the contract terms, and his at-will employment could be terminated for any reason. The Union is not legally obliged to represent him as he has not paid his dues. The same Paragraph 2, however, could be said to protect Juan’s job as the company took the position that no strike replacement employee should lose employment at the end of the strike. Although the Union did not agree to this position, it remained in the Agreement as the Company’s position.

8. Rich was also told he would have a job by HR at the time of hiring even after the strike ended. The company did not legally fulfill its obligations to him, and the Union should represent him as he is a dues paying member. The same Paragraph 2 should protect Rich, too, even though the Agreement was not signed until after his termination, it should be retroactive in terms of it covering his employment as he was a strike replacement worker and applies to him.

9. Frank was not told anything about having a job after the strike and the company was not obliged to find him a position. The Union is not legally obliged to represent him as he is not a dues paying member. Frank likewise may not need Union representation as Paragraph 2 appears to protect him, since he was hired as a strike replacement worker and the Agreement does appear to give him protection in terms of employment.

10. In the meantime, Paul Hawkman has come to see the HR Director about the matter. He hands over the paperwork for her termination. By addressing Hawkman and the GC separately, explain how the Director should handle this case and why. Write concisely and limit your response to a maximum of 1/2 page for both.

Hawkman:

Hawkman has no grounds for terminating Stone, and he must give her her job back. He should be reprimanded for taking such an aggressive step with her, obviously holding a grudge against her for striking. The company policy does not allow for termination but only for reprimand for not following procedure regarding borrowing equipment. Hawkman should be warned that if he acts out of bias in this manner again he will be terminated.

Additionally, it should be stated that manager bias towards employees being too quick to terminate workers can lead to some serious consequences. For one, it can foster a culture of fear in the workplace, where employees are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of being let go. This can lead to decreased productivity and creativity, as employees are less likely to take risks. Additionally, it can create an environment where employees are unwilling to speak up about problems or concerns, as they don't want to be seen as troublemakers. Finally, this bias can also lead to high turnover rates, as employees who feel they are in danger of being terminated are more likely to leave voluntarily. Ultimately, manager bias towards employees being too quick to terminate workers can have a negative impact on the overall workplace climate.