Electromation, Inc V. NLRB (1992) In 1988 the Electromation organization was experiencing financial hardship. The Electromation organization was a small company with 200 employees. Due to the financial hardship, Electromation management decided to do away with the employee attendance bonus policy as well as the wage increase for 1989. Instead of giving a wage increase, Electromation decided to give a lump sum payment to employees based on their individual length of service. Shortly after making these decisions, the president of the organization receive a petition from 68 employees expressing their objection to the changes in the policy. The president met with supervisory personnel to discuss the concerns. After meeting with Electromation
…show more content…
When this happened, management instructed the committees that management was no longer able to partake but that the committee could continue their work if they wanted to (Reed and Bogardus, 2012).
Outcomes. As a direct result of the Electromation Inc., case, the NLRB indicated that not every employee-participation committee is employer-dominated organizations and they may also serve a purpose if they are not dominated by the employer. The NLRB also resolved that compensating employees who partake in committees at work does not in and of itself violate the NLRA (Reed and Bogardus, 2012).
In the time after the Electromation case, establishments and groups representing employers ' interests, saw the NLRB’s decision as pushing workplace cooperative efforts in danger of being eliminated. Advocates of the Board 's decision felt as if the rules were making it practically impossible for companies to continue experimentation with workplace cooperative efforts. These opponents accused the NLRB of introducing an ambiguous and uncertain question of how employers could create workplace cooperative efforts that would tolerate legal challenges. Opponents feared the decision, would have a bad on employers ' inclination to present sharing efforts in their workplaces (Rafael,
When this happened, management instructed the committees that management was no longer able to partake but that the committee could continue their work if they wanted to (Reed and Bogardus, 2012).
Outcomes. As a direct result of the Electromation Inc., case, the NLRB indicated that not every employee-participation committee is employer-dominated organizations and they may also serve a purpose if they are not dominated by the employer. The NLRB also resolved that compensating employees who partake in committees at work does not in and of itself violate the NLRA (Reed and Bogardus, 2012).
In the time after the Electromation case, establishments and groups representing employers ' interests, saw the NLRB’s decision as pushing workplace cooperative efforts in danger of being eliminated. Advocates of the Board 's decision felt as if the rules were making it practically impossible for companies to continue experimentation with workplace cooperative efforts. These opponents accused the NLRB of introducing an ambiguous and uncertain question of how employers could create workplace cooperative efforts that would tolerate legal challenges. Opponents feared the decision, would have a bad on employers ' inclination to present sharing efforts in their workplaces (Rafael,