Reference no: EM132824192

Can you please answer these questions:

1) You must decide if there is evidence of "anti-union animus". Did the company enact all of the new policies and benefits and policies to interfere with the union vote by 'bribing' the workers? Explain your decision.

2) The union challenged the new employee/management committee saying that it is an illegally created "Employer Dominated" alternate union representing workers. They say that since it was created and controlled by the employer it is not a legal union as employer dominated unions are illegal. The company argued that these committees are no different than quality circles or simple meetings to improve the company, and that all employee benefit from them. Did the employer create a illegal employer dominated union? Explain your decision.

Facts:

The company operates about 700 convenience stores. A sales assistant at one of the company's stores was murdered while on duty. The murder was widely publicized, and employees complained of inadequate security measures. As a result of the murder, 15 sales assistants telephoned the union requesting a union organization effort. The union sent representatives to 60 stores in the area where the murder had occurred and left union authorization cards. Two days later the company notified the union that an injunction had been issued during a prior union campaign prohibiting solicitation on company property.

The next workday, the company had a meeting with the store managers in the area and talked about the need to improve security. The company officials also discussed the union's organization activities and reminded the managers of the "no solicitation" policy and stated that a union would not necessarily do the employees any good. Later that week, the company had an unprecedented meeting for all sales assistants. Approximately 200 sales assistants attended and were paid for their time. The company officials told the employees that they did not need a union and that the employees from the union could retrieve their authorization cards. The employees were asked to voice their complaints and the employees listed the following: getting less than 40 hours work per week; not having breaks; not being paid for overtime work; working alone at night; and poor lighting at the stores.

The next day the company sent a memo to all regional personnel directing that sales assistants should work a 40-hour workweek; canopy lights were installed at all the stores; a policy was adopted that no one would be required to be the only person working at night; and sales assistants began receiving wages for after-hours overtime work. The company posted "no solicitation" signs in all stores and directed that those signs be enforced; if the employees did not enforce the signs, they would lose their jobs. Later that month the company held further meetings with sales assistants, who again were paid for their time. They asked to select committee representatives to meet with management to discuss their complaints. Management officials left the room while the employees selected their representatives. The company made a list of the ten most frequently mentioned items from the employees' recommended subjects for the committee to discuss.

Meanwhile, the union filed a representation petition with the NLRB seeking an election in a unit of all Summitt, Ohio sales assistants. The company president told the managers to tell the sales assistants that if they joined the union, the company would close those stores. The first meeting of the Employee Management Committee was held and the ten priority items were listed, granting employees a new vacation policy, improved health-care benefits, sick days, change in holiday hours for pay, recognition of seniority ranks, and improved security systems. Not long after that, the company sent an additional memo around announcing other improvements in life, major medical, and accident insurance plans, in addition to death and family benefits and a revised disciplinary appeal system.

The union charged the company with unfair labor practice for granting benefits to prevent a fair election and for creating an employer-dominated labor union. The company denied that the motivation for the benefits was to prevent a union, and furthermore that the employee organization was a "labor organization" under the NLRA. Even if it was a "labor organization," the company denied that it was a company-dominated organization.