M1: Interpreting Laws and Court Decisions
Case Studies 1.1 and 3.4

Case Study 1.1: Discharge for Whistleblower Activity

1. Should the federal appeals court deny Broom and Miller’s appeal and enforce the decision of the state district court finding upholding the discharge of the two whistleblowers?
The federal appeals court should uphold and enforce the decision of the state district court findings of the discharge of Broom and Miller. I will list several reasons that I believe will support my answer this question. Janet Broom and Darla Miller worked for a residential care facility. They were suspicious of another fellow employee. They believed that the employee was stealing drugs from the residents and falsified the medication log books. Broom and Miller decided to turn that employee in which in turn they were fired from their jobs. The first reason is that Broom and Miller did not follow the procedure in the residential care facility employee handbook. The employee handbook states “for the initial complaint to be filed with the accused employee’s immediate supervisor.” (Holley, Jennings, and Wolters, 2006) They both decided to make the complaint to the medication supervisor consultant who was not their immediate supervisor.
The second reason is since they lived in Oklahoma, this state’s common law has the employment at will doctrine. This doctrine states “employment relationships established for an indefinite duration may be terminated by either the employer or employee at any time for any or no stated reason.” (Holley, Jennings, and Wolters, 2006) There was no evidence that Janet and Darla were fired under a protected class which includes age, religion, race, or ethnicity. They also believed that another exception to the employment at will doctrine applied to them. This would be “performing an act that public policy would encourage or refusing to perform an act public policy would discourage, when the discharge action is coupled with a showing of bad faith, malice, or retaliation.” (Holley, Jennings, and Wolters, 2006) They felt this applied to them as this was encouraging Oklahoma public policy that supported why they wanted to turn this employee in.
Another reason is that Janet Broom and Darla Miller argued the three statutory laws to support their case. The Nursing Home Care Act “governs safeguards and procedures for patient prescription drugs.” (Holley, Jennings, and Wolters, 2006) Their employer’s residential care facility did not fall under this act because of they were not licensed under this act which did not apply to them. The Residential Care act does apply to the employer but the employer pointed out in court that Broom and Miller did not “raise the issue applicability” (Holley, Jennings and Wolters, 2006) Thus making it impossible for them to us e this in the appeals court according to state law. The Uniform Controlled Substance Act making it illegal to steal drugs was also not used appropriately by Broom and Miller. They could not give a specific reason on this applied to them. They were suspicious of the employee but there was nothing noted of them having actual proof or specifically seeing the employee steal the drugs.

2. How might this case have been handled differently if Broom and Miller had been members of a bargaining unit represented by a union for purposes of collective bargaining? If Broom and Miller had been members of a bargaining unit represented by a union this outcome could possibly be different. They would have been protected under the union’s bargaining agreement with the employer. The union could have effectively argued why both Janet and Darla did not follow employee policy to report to their immediate supervisor but to other supervisor within the company. They had serious concerns of the close relationship between the accused employee and their immediate supervisor which they would have feared that their accusation would be dismissed and the fear of retaliation by their supervisor. Also I think that the union would have been able to clearly state their arguments so it can be used for their appeal.

Case Study 3.4: Challenge of Employer Policy on “Inquiries by Government Representative.”

1. Does the employer’s policy “Inquiries by Government Representatives” represent a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the LMRA? If so, what should be the appropriate remedy? The employer’s policy “Inquiries by Government Representatives” does represent a violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the LMRA. I think the policy of” do not volunteer any information, or admit or deny the truthfulness of any allegation or statement the inspector may make, nor sign any written statements, without express approval from a company attorney” ((Holley, Jennings, and Wolters, 2006) is a violation. As section 8 (a) (1) states employers can’t interfere or coerce employees in their rights. Employees are not allowed to offer information until it’s approved by the company attorney. This I feel in interference by the company. If the company does not approve of the information, then the employee cannot speak of the disapproving information as they are going against company policy. The remedy should be to eliminate that section of the policy manual.
2. Does the employer’s policy “Inquiries by Government Representatives” represent a violation of Section 8 (a) (4) of the LMRA? If so, what should be the appropriate remedy? The employer’s policy “Inquiries by Government Representatives” I feel does not represent a violation of section 8 (a) (4) of the LMRA. There is nothing clearly stating that employees will be discharged upon filing unfair labor practices in the policy manual. However it does imply in the policy manual again to not volunteer information to the inspector. This can make employees feel they could be fired for not following the policy manual especially if they do not understand their protected rights under LMRA.

References:
Holley, W.H.and Jennings, K.M and Wolters, R.S. (2006) The Labor Relations Process. Thomas South Western.