Reference no: EM13249118

In Jan. 1991, the company was not unionized but had established a "Plant council" which consisted of three managers and five employees elected by the Plant's workers. The Council was created and designed by employer to offer recommendations to management about proposed changes in working conditions. The employer had agreed to consider those recommendations, recognizing that if the managers and employees on the council reached a consensus, then that idea would likely be acceptable to both management and employees. In Feb. 1991, the union began an organizing campaign to try to establish a collective bargaining unit for the company. During the campaign, the employer emphasized the role of the Plant Council when urging employees to vote against the union. In addition, the employer told employees that their vote was a choice between an "employee involvement process" and selecting a union as a representative. After the union lost the election, it filed an unfair labor charge against the employer for interfering with the election and for creating a "company union" in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

1. Do you think the union should or should not have challenged the election? Why?

2. One of the techniques used by companies in the late 1800s to discourage union organizing was to create company unions. This case would seem to suggest that nothing about the workplace had changed in over 100 years. What decision do you think the judge made in this 1991 case and why?

3. The employer obviously wanted the employees to participate in the decisions in the workplace because such buy in would result in better decisions. Why then did the employer prefer the council to the union?