Part C: Essay
Even though the workers at the company gained some notable concessions from the organization because of the organization's fear they would unionize, this still does not mean the company actions were legal. In fact, it is illegal to promise benefits and pay raises to workers if they do not unionize. The actions of the company seem to constitute an implied quid-pro-quo regarding employee actions. Although the no-solicitation rule posted is within the legal rights of the employer, the company must also ensure that it is compliant with the law, which means the union still has access to employees in other areas outside the workforce and that the non-solicitation policy is not enforced in a discriminatory fashion only against unions. It is also illegal to threaten employees with...
While this threat was not directly made, the statement that employees would be fired if they did not enforce the no-solicitation policy seems to contain that implication. It is also illegal to threaten to close stores if workers join the union, which the company did explicitly do.
The company would no doubt defend itself by saying that the new benefits and concessions were made purely in response to worker input, and were not offered in a quid-pro-quo fashion for the workers joining the union. It would say that the non-solicitation policy was not enforced in a discriminatory fashion. However, the threat regarding closing down the stores would be difficult to defend under current statutes, other than the company making an outright denial that it occurred.
