Reference no: EM131405200

Labor Law Discussion Case: Do Threats in Mexico Violate U.S. Labor Laws?

Southwest Propane Transport, Inc., was a U.S. company that transported propane from Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California to customer distribution sites in Mexico. Its main employees were therefore truck drivers who drove propane from these southwestern states to cities in Mexico such as Tijuana, Nogales, and Juarez. These truck drivers were U.S. citizens, the majority of their working time was spent in the United States, and they were clearly the employees of a U.S. company (Southwest Propane Transport, hereafter called SPT).

For several Years the SPT truck drivers were allowed to sell whatever diesel fuel was left over from their runs. This typically amounted to between $50 and $100 per week, and the drivers viewed this as meal money. In fact, when some employees asked for meal money, they were told that if they wanted something to eat, they should watch their fuel consumption and sell the extra to buy something to eat. But when a new operations manager, Oscar Silva, took over, he stopped the practice of allowing drivers to sell their extra fuel. The drivers were already concerned with the safety of the trucks; their frustrations were magnified by this abrupt cut in their compensation, and they collectively went to talk with Silva about these issues. When he refused to listen to their concerns, the Arizona-based truck drivers talked with a union organizer. Shortly thereafter the union received signed authorization cards from 16 of the 19 Arizona-based drivers and filed petition with the NLRB for a representation election. During the election campaign, SPT had numerous small group meetings to try to convince the employees not to vote for the union in the upcoming election.

Two of the most vocal union supporters were drivers Maria Meraz and Rogelio Delgado. During this period of campaigning, Marez and Delgado had several conversations with Gabriel Acosta. Acosta frequently assigned routes to the truck drivers and could discipline them. In other words, he was seen by the SPT drivers as a supervisor. Acosta indicated that the drivers would get a raise if they voted against the union, and they would be "showed the door," if they voted the union in. Moreover, Acosta told Meraz and Delgado that after they were "showed the door," he would be sure to badmouth them to other gas companies so they could not get new jobs.

Questions:

1. Explain how Acosta's actions violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

2. Interestingly, the conversations between Acosta, Meraz, and Delgado occurred at the Nogales distribution center in Mexico, not in the United States. Moreover, Acosta was a Mexican citizen who worked in Mexico for a Mexican company. Acosta was not employed by SPT but instead worked for SPT's major customer in Mexico. Nevertheless, Acosta frequently assigned routes to the truck drivers for their return to the United States and sometimes disciplined them. He was seen by the SPT drivers not only as a supervisor but as the voice and authority of SPT in Mexico. In Silva's words, Acosta was his 'eyes and ears" in Nogales. Do you still think Acosta's actions violated American labor law (NLRA)?

3. Did Acosta's action violate any human rights standards? If so, should there be any consequences or remedies for this violation?

You must cite REFERENCES to the assigned case.