Further, the use of this sign may also be considered harassing to some employees. Under this line of thinking, an employee could view this sign as harassing them for their own personal political beliefs. Like the case made under an intimidation argument, such practice is not permissible.

Finally, the statement made on the sign, that of immediate termination upon having sympathetic views of the union, is simply not true and is therefore fraudulent. A termination cannot be made based on beliefs alone, thus to state anything else is an act of fraud on the part of the Plato Corporation.

Question Six

The search of Murray's locker is constitutional. First, it needs to be noted that because Murray's employer is a private entity contracted to print U.S. Postage stamps, it is a private entity and thus falls outside the realm of what is or is not a constitutionally protected search and seizure. If this were the police searching his home, a different outcome would be likely. However, because it occurs at work, less constitutional protection is granted.

First, Murray's employer has probable cause to think that he is stealing sheets of stamps from the production line. With probable cause, they can legally search his locker. However, even if Murray's employer did not have probable cause, they would still most likely be able to search Murray's locker. Murray's locker is not his property but the property of his employer. Because it is not his property, he has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to what is inside of it. The same can be said of such office storage spaces as desk drawers and file...

Since these areas are owned by the company and are to be used for company purposes, there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy as to their contents. Without the existence of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the employer can legally search its contents. Thus, Murray's employer was acting constitutionally when it searched his locker and found the stolen stamps.
Question Seven

Whether listing several union members as internal spies for the business owner is legal or not is more of a question of morals. Technically, there is nothing illegal about having someone get insider-information for you. However, this is generally looked at as immoral and therefore often times specifically stated to be unfair employment practices either in employer handbooks or in the contract between the union and the employer. Hence, assuming that any negotiated union contract would include a provision against such subversive practices on the part of the employer, then this act would be illegal.

If the contract specifically states that using internal spies as a way of breaking up union activity is not allowed, then this action would constitute an illegal breach of contract. Further, if the spies were used to get information that was occurring outside of the workplace and outside of work hours, then there could be a claim for invasion of privacy as typically an employer only has the right to monitor the activities occurring within the actual workplace.

For the reasons cited herein, the Jupiter Hotels owner's use of listing internal union spies is more likely than not an illegal employment practice.