Reference no: EM131637415
Case Analysis (This is worth 20% of the exam.)
For 3 years Jack Sandeen has worked for Crate Builders, an industrial plant that manufactures and sells high-tech packing containers in an employment-at-will state within the eastern United States. When he was hired, he believed he would receive training that would enable him to move from the factory floor into the supervisor’s role. The company experienced a downturn in revenue, however; and, along with 50 hourly workers, several managerial positions were eliminated. During restructuring, the boss’s son, Darrell Shelton, was appointed head of Jack’s department. There has been friction between Darrell and the rest of the staff. They don’t like the new scheduling and work quotas he has implemented. When Jack complained to Darrell that the required quota was too high, in front of the other workers, Darrell snidely reminded him that he was the supervisor, times were tough, and more people could be let go.
That evening, Jack went with a few of the guys to the local pub. A union organizer was at the bar and overheard the group complaining about Darrell. The organizer told them about their right to representation. He gave them his business card along with a few brochures to take home. The next week, Darrell found one of the brochures on the floor by the locked company bulletin board. The staff saw him crumple it and spike it into the trash can. He turned and glared at Jack. “You think you’re so smart. We’re watching you. We know about your little chat.” He bit back more words then walked into his office and slammed the door.
Several weeks later, Jack was called into the Human Resource Management office. He was informed that his production numbers were low and they needed to cut more staff so he was being let go. Jack asked to see the statistics for the department, but HR said that was proprietary information. When he asked who else was being fired, HR told him that was also private information. The guys at the bar told Jack later that they could not find anyone else who was terminated when he was.
1. True or False: The comment “We know about your little chat” would help management in a Wright Line test.
2. True or False: If Jack’s production numbers were higher than most, this data would support management in a Wright Line test.
3. True or False: Since this is an employment-at-will state and there is no union in place, management can legally terminate Jack without considering any Wright Line test results.
4. True or False: At work, Jack had a right to solicit other employees in his department to join the union as long as he did it during regular working hours and didn’t do it in front of customers.
5. True or False: The union would see the comment “We’re watching you” as an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)1 of the NLRA.
6. True or False: Promoting Jack to supervisor in the last restructuring would have been a legal way to avoid his union participation.
7. True or False: The company can terminate a supervisor at any time for any reason if it does not have other policies or contracts that contradict that flexibility.
8. True or False: Terminating others who were not involved with the union at the same time Jack was let go would support the company’s position in an unfair labor practice charge.
9. True or False: Section 7 rights require the company to terminate those with less than the 3 years seniority Jack has before letting him go.
10. True or False: Darrell’s comments represent Budd’s concept of voice.