WEEK 12-Labor Law 1

a. NLRA and Section 7 and Labor Peace * Employers and unions if employees elect a union then an employer is required to bargain the union over wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment.
b. NLRB * 5 people appointed by the president that administer the act. They have to be approved by the senate
c. PERA (Michigan) * Public employees relation act-covers public sector(payed by tax dollars)
d. MERC * Michigan employment relations commission-governor appoints and state senate approves.
e. ULP * Unfair Labor Practice-violation of PERA or NLRA
f. ULP – Regional Manager – ALJ – NLRB – COA – S. Ct. * Labor judge, NLRB, court of appeals, supreme court
g. Section 8 – Enforces Section 7 * Section 7 tells what act is about section 8 enforces it
h. Wages, Hours, Terms and Conditions of Employment * What you bargain for, terms(healthcare, uniforms)
i. Section 8 a - applies to ERS * Tells employer what they can or cannot do
j. Section 8 b – applies to Unions * Tells unions what they can or cannot do
k. Who is a protected EE under the NLRA? * (Not supervisors, not K workers, not managerial EES, not confidential EES.)
j. Who is a protected EE under Michigan’s PERA? * (Everyone except Executives)

ARTICLE 1
A. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) * Is a process of negotiations between employers and a group of employees aimed at reaching agreements that regulate working conditions. The collective agreements reached by these negotiations usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs.
B. The purpose of the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) * bargain the union over wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment(healthcare, uniforms,etc..)
C. Who is an EE under the NLRA and therefore protected by the NLRA? * Most employees in the private sector this does not include supervisors
D. What EES are NOT protected under the NLRA * Anyone except supervisors, K workers, managerial EES, and confidential EES

ARTICLE 2
A. Who are the parties to a CBA under the NLRA? * Employers and the union representative
B. What must the parties bargain over under the NLRA? * bargain the union over wages, hours, terms, and conditions of employment.
C. What is a Right to Work State? * Secures the right of employees to decide for themselves to join a union or not
D. Michigan is a Right to Work State – name five others. * Louisiana * Florida * Texas * Utah * Wyoming
E. What is a ULP? * Unfair Labor Practice

ARTICLE -Meenan Oil Case http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/139/139.F3d.311.97-4200.995.html A. What are the facts of the case? * refusing to bargain with a properly certified union and requiring Meenan (inter alia ) to bargain with the union on demand. Meenan contends that the two collective-bargaining units at issue were improperly certified because they include employees who are outside the protection of the NLRA. Specifically, Meenan asserts that (1) its oil and service dispatchers are supervisors; (2) its administrator for payroll and personnel matters is a managerial as well as a confidential employee; and (3) the executive secretary to its general manager is a confidential employee. The Board argues that its findings are supported by substantial evidence.
B. What is the issue that is before the case? * Whether or not these employees are protected or not by the NLRA
C. What is the law that governs the case? * NLRA which does not protect supervisors, K workers, managerial EES, and confidential EES
D. What is the decision of the case? * The court was against Meenan
E. What are the reasons for the decision? * Meenan originally included these two position in the original collective bargaining unit

ARTICLE 4-Town and Country-salting http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_947 A. What are the facts of the case?

B. What is the issue that is before the case?

C. What is the law that governs the case?

D. What is the decision of the case?

E. What are the reasons for the decision?

ARTICLE 5-Buckhorn Case-anti union animus during election http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/472/53/368404/ A. What are the facts of the case? * the union (The United Mine Workers of America) requested bargaining on the ground that it held authorization cards executed by 85% of the employees of this operation. The request was rejected and on October 14, the union filed a representation petition; a hearing was held on this petition, and a direction of election was issued. * Early the following month, the company halted its deep mine operation after receiving complaints from Georgia Power Company, its sole customer, about the quality of the coal mined. On the following day, the company decided to reopen the mine on a reduced, one-shift basis to try to find a higher quality coal. A limited number of former employees were recalled for this operation; among the twelve employees not recalled were the six charging parties. * During the months following the closedown of the mine (November and December), four of these former employees sought reemployment but were rebuffed by the mine superintendent and foreman who indicated that he thought they were not being recalled because of their union sympathies. The election was held on January 6, 1971, and the union lost by a wide margin. * On February 1, the company sent a letter to each of the former employees who had not been recalled offering him reinstatement as of February 8; three of the charging parties had secured other employment and declined this offer, but the others were eventually reemployed with the exception of Curtis Colwell, hereinafter discussed. * The Board found that the company violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening employees with closure of its deep mine, with consequent loss of employment to employees and by threatening to fire employees who signed union authorization cards or who supported the union. The Board also found that the company violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily refusing to recall the six charging parties from layoff, and it ordered the company to compensate all six charging parties for any loss of earnings caused them by the discrimination and to offer reinstatement to Colwell.
B. What is the issue that is before the case? * whether substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the Board's findings.
C. What is the law that governs the case? * NLRA
D. What is the decision of the case? * Company violated section 8 of the NLRA
E. What are the reasons for the decision? * Company threatened employees with closure of its deep mine, with consequent loss of employment to employees and threatening to fire employees who signed union authorization cards or who supported the union * Company also discriminatorily refused to recall the six charging parties from layoff

DAY TWO

Article 1-City Disposal Systems http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/766/969/302812 A. What are the facts of the case? * Brown was a truck driver for City Disposal who was employed under the terms of the company's collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters Local 247. It was City Disposal's practice to assign each driver to operate a particular tractor-trailer unit and Brown generally used truck number 245 to haul garbage from Detroit to a landfill approximately 37 miles away. * as Brown maneuvered truck 245 within the landfill to dump his cargo, he narrowly avoided being hit by City Disposal's truck 244, which fellow employee Frank Hamilton found difficult to stop because of brake failure. Brown and Hamilton returned to City Disposal's Detroit facility, where they approached company mechanics brakes "over the weekend," of which only Saturday evening and Sunday remained. * On Monday, May 14, Brown began work at 4 a.m. using truck 245. Later in the morning he encountered difficulty operating truck 245 and advised mechanic Ammerman that it was defective. Ammerman told Brown that City Disposal's garage was full with trucks requiring repairs and that he would not be able to repair truck 245 that day. Brown next encountered his supervisor, Otto Jasmund. Brown informed Jasmund that truck 245 was inoperable and that Ammerman had told Brown to go home. After confirming that truck 245 would not be repaired that day, Jasmund told Brown to punch out and go home * Before Brown left, however, Jasmund returned and asked him to drive truck 244. Brown answered, "No, there's something wrong with that truck." Brown explained that "a grease seal or something leaking" was affecting the brakes of truck 244. An argument developed between Jasmund and Brown, in which a second supervisor, Robert Madary, intervened. When Madary requested that Brown drive truck 244, Brown again declined and stated that the truck had problems. Rather than assuring Brown that truck 244 had been repaired, Madary replied that half of City Disposal's trucks had problems and that the company would be unable to perform its services if it attempted to remedy every problem. As Madary complained about the amount of garbage awaiting disposal, Brown responded by asking whether Madary planned to "put the garbage ahead of the safety of the men." Madary scorned this remark and departed, after which Brown went home. Later that day, City Disposal informed Local 247 that it had discharged Brown. Although Local 247's recording secretary and Brown met with supervisors Jasmund and Madary that very afternoon, City Disposal refused to reinstate Brown.
B. What is the issue that is before the case? * Whether the company had a right to fire Brown or not
C. What is the law that governs the case? * NLRA
D. What is the decision of the case? * Court ruled in favor of Brown
E. What are the reasons for the decision? * Found that an employee has a right to refuse operating any equipment that they find unsafe * Board found that company fired Brown because of his Determined protected activity

Article 2-Lechmere http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=502&invol=527 A. What are the facts of the case? * Petitioner Lechmere, Inc., owns and operates a retail store located in a shopping plaza in a large metropolitan area. Lechmere is also part owner of the plaza's parking lot, which is separated from a public highway by a 4-foot wide grassy strip, almost all of which is public property. In a campaign to organize Lechmere employees, nonemployee union organizers placed handbills on the windshields of cars parked in the employees' part of the parking lot. After Lechmere denied the organizers access to the lot, they distributed handbills and picketed from the grassy strip. In addition, they were able to contact directly some 20 of the employees. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge with respondent National Labor Relations Board (Board), alleging that Lechmere had violated the NLRA by barring the organizers from its property.
B. What is the issue that is before the case? * Did Lechmere violate the NLRA by barring the organizers from its property
C. What is the law that governs the case? * NLRA
D. What is the decision of the case? * Rule in unions favor
E. What are the reasons for the decision? * The Board affirmed, relying on its ruling in Jean Country, 291 N.L.R.B. 11, that, in all access cases, the Board should balance (1) the degree of impairment of the 7 right if access is denied, against (2) the degree of impairment of the private property right if access is granted, taking into consideration (3) the availability of reasonably effective alternative means of exercising the 7 right. Id., at 14. The Court of Appeals enforced the Board's order.
Article 3-Darlington Case/closing of a plant http://openjurist.org/380/us/263/textile-workers-union-of-america-v-darlington-manufacturing-company A. What are the facts of the case? * In March 1956 petitioner Textile Workers Union initiated an organizational campaign at Darlington which the company resisted vigorously in various ways, including threats to close the mill if the union won a representation election.3 On September 6, 1956, the union won an election by a narrow margin. When Roger Milliken was advised of the union victory, he decided to call a meeting of the Darlington board of directors to consider closing the mill. Mr. Milliken testified before the Labor Board * The union filed charges with the Labor Board claiming that Darlington had violated §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by closing its plant,4 and § 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain with the union after the election
B. What is the issue that is before the case? * guilty of an unfair labor practice by reason of having permanently closed its plant following petitioner union's election as the bargaining representative of Darlington's employees.
C. What is the law that governs the case? * Section 8 of NLRA
D. What is the decision of the case? * Darlington was found guilty
E. What are the reasons for the decision? * By reason of having permanently closed its plant following petitioner union's election as the bargaining representative of Darlington's employees.