Case Study 1: The Union’s Demand for Recognition and Bargaining Rights
Sean Kail
Columbia Southern University

This case study is from 1975 and regards a union trying to recruits new members from an apartment building and townhouse complex. There are 11 employees that work for the Thomas Hall the property manager, in which he did not want involved in any union matters so he passed the burden onto the vice president Carl Alton. The maintenance supervisor got wind of the union trying to recruit the employees and started asking questions. Melton called and confronts multiple employees about the alleged union meetings. Melton was released by the company 15 days after the alleged phone calls and questionings. The union alleged the company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA, in which they repeatedly interrogated employees. Melton did call and question multiple employees when he got wind of the union; he was definitely in violation of the LMRA, if such were true. The company claimed that they were unaware of Melton questioning the employees and since he was let go the union can not use his actions against them. Also with the election not being held for another 36 days after Melton was let go his actions had no influence on the employee’s decisions. Melton did state “You are either on my side of the fence or your side of the fence… You always had is good. I have given you… you got a nice job, you got an apartment… this is your last chance.” (Ivancevich J. p503). That statement is in violation due to the threatening way it was perceived as if, you don’t side with me it won’t turn out in your favor. Melton also asked an employee who else was involved and talking to the union, the employee refused to answer, Melton then proceeded to say “keep his ears and eyes open and to let him know if he heard anything” (Ivancevich J. p503). The company then announced that they would be improving their health benefits for employees; I feel this is a way to try to convince the employees to not go to the union and to stay on the company’s side and they will now be treated better. When the union brought this up the company defended themselves with the statement that this was part of the annual improvement plan that comes at the end of each year, very convenient time. I feel that this is a cover up by the company to not be in violation of the Section in which the files a being charged. The union definitely has a stronger leg to stand on with their side of the argument. The fact that a supervisor called and questions multiple employees violated the LMRA and the company tried to cover it up by firing Melton, also when they announced the new health benefits that were a way to coerce employees to stay out of the union. Leo Lord was the replacement for Melton and upon the representation election he stated to Cecil Snow that “if the union won the election, the employer would take-free apartments away from the janitors’ helpers and charge for the second bedroom in their apartments” (Ivancevich J. p504). I feel this was definitely a way to scare Snow into believing that it would cost the employees more money for rent if they sided with the union. Due to not personally snow it is hard to tell his intentions but from an outsiders perspective that statement should have been kept private and that is was intent to coerce Snow into siding with the company. When the union had its first meeting on December 5th 1975 there were 11 employees present and 6 of them signed authorization cards and 1 employee was already a member. Since the union lost the representation election 6 to 4 they requested that the employees that previously signed the authorization cards to bargain with the union to come up with a central agreement that they both agreed on. The company is obligated to accept the bargain with the union because it is the right of the employee to sign with a union. The fact that the company lost the representation election does not terminate the authorization cards signed by the employees. The employees can still be a member of the union even though the union just lost the filed charges of section 8(a)(1). I feel to be a good company they should be willing to accept some type of a bargain to accommodate employees that would like to be in the union. If the company would have been found guilty of the accused violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA they should be given a new election as well as be given a new bargaining order. This whole situation happened within a time frame of less than 2 months. As an employee they would have felt threatened by going against their employer due to being afraid of losing their jobs as well as being treated unfairly. With that being said I feel that a new election should happen at a later time to allow the employees to really think about what they want and to allow the company managers to cool down and rethink the situation possibly allowing both sides to come up with an agreement on a bargaining order. I absolutely feel that unions due protect employees that are treated unfairly in wages and benefits, and they should meet in the middle to make everyone happy.

Source:
Ivancevich, J. (2010). Labor-Management Relations. Human Resource Management (503-505). : The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.