The T-Shirt Offer and Picnic Photographs Case Study contained a few questionable actions by the union. This paper will summarize this case. Next, the paper will answer questions in regards to conduct, previous cases, outcome, and predict how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will rule.
Case Summary
A free luncheon was hosted by the union a day before the election in a parking lot adjacent to the Young Skin’s plant. The union took pictures and “Union Yes” T-Shirts were given to employees who signed a petition that they were voting yes. The shirts cost the union between four and five dollars.
The first questionable action the company identified was the T-Shirt offer. “By requiring signing as a condition of receiving a free T-Shirt, the company contended that this represented an unlawful grant of benefit that the union used to induce employees to sign the pro-union petition (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012).” To validate their point, the company compared this action to union’s offering to waive initiation fees. Although the initiation fee was valued at $10, the Supreme Court found this fee unlawful in a previous case. The union stated that the T-shirts were inexpensive and doesn’t interfere with free choice. In addition, “The Supreme Court in the previous case ruled that all employees, regardless of their views on unions, had an economic interest in obtaining the fee waiver that was offered as an inducement to sign union authorization cards (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012).” The union is stating that the T-shirts are different and would only be desirable to employees who would want to unionize. Secondly, the company had a problem with the photographs. The business stated that the union created an atmosphere of fear and coercion by taking pictures. Two employees stated that they were troubled or felt funny about their photos being taken. The company alleged, with a possible union win, that the employees believed that the union would use these recordings for future retaliation. On the other hand, the union responded that photographing might suggest a retaliatory purposes but it doesn’t. It just shows employees enjoying a picnic which everyone chose to attend voluntarily. Union officials stated that these pictures would be in USA Today and that this was also taken for the union’s newspaper. The union contends that there is no malice behind the photos. Must Illegal Conduct Occur to Overturn Election Results No, illegal conduct doesn’t need to occur to overturn the results of a union representation election. In the next paragraph where the cases are compared, illegal acts didn’t occur, but the union wins were overturned. Conversely, illegal conduct is immediate grounds to overturn an election or grant a rerun election. In the case of Jimmy Johns in Minnesota, the employer unlawfully fired six employees (NLRB-Jimmy …show more content…
The Savair Company case contained a waiver of monetary value for signing authorization cards similar to the case study offering free T-shirts for signing the petition (414 U.S., n.d.). The Pepsi and Mike Yurosek cases involved pictures. With the Pepsi Case, the reason for the videotaping was unclear. For the Mike Yurosek case, it was stated that it was to be used to have evidence of antiunion support misconduct. In comparison, the case study stated that the union is using it to publish in the USA Today and to remember the fun-filled …show more content…
The luncheon occurred away from company grounds during their designated break times. In comparing the Pepsi and Mike Yurosek cases, the employees were being filmed going to their place of employment truly without consent. In the case study, the employees voluntarily went to the union sponsored luncheon. In addition, the case study stated why the pictures were being taken. In comparison, no reason was given for the Pepsi Case.
How will the NLRB Rule
The NLRB will rule in favor of the union. The shirts were given to individuals that wanted to be part of the union and wearing a shirt showing support doesn’t change the outcome. Secondly, if someone is anti-union the likelihood of them wearing a shirt that said vote yes is highly unlikely, even if the shirts are free. Though pictures were taken by the union, it was a voluntary event that a member made a conscientious choice to attend.
Case Summary
A free luncheon was hosted by the union a day before the election in a parking lot adjacent to the Young Skin’s plant. The union took pictures and “Union Yes” T-Shirts were given to employees who signed a petition that they were voting yes. The shirts cost the union between four and five dollars.
The first questionable action the company identified was the T-Shirt offer. “By requiring signing as a condition of receiving a free T-Shirt, the company contended that this represented an unlawful grant of benefit that the union used to induce employees to sign the pro-union petition (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012).” To validate their point, the company compared this action to union’s offering to waive initiation fees. Although the initiation fee was valued at $10, the Supreme Court found this fee unlawful in a previous case. The union stated that the T-shirts were inexpensive and doesn’t interfere with free choice. In addition, “The Supreme Court in the previous case ruled that all employees, regardless of their views on unions, had an economic interest in obtaining the fee waiver that was offered as an inducement to sign union authorization cards (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2012).” The union is stating that the T-shirts are different and would only be desirable to employees who would want to unionize. Secondly, the company had a problem with the photographs. The business stated that the union created an atmosphere of fear and coercion by taking pictures. Two employees stated that they were troubled or felt funny about their photos being taken. The company alleged, with a possible union win, that the employees believed that the union would use these recordings for future retaliation. On the other hand, the union responded that photographing might suggest a retaliatory purposes but it doesn’t. It just shows employees enjoying a picnic which everyone chose to attend voluntarily. Union officials stated that these pictures would be in USA Today and that this was also taken for the union’s newspaper. The union contends that there is no malice behind the photos. Must Illegal Conduct Occur to Overturn Election Results No, illegal conduct doesn’t need to occur to overturn the results of a union representation election. In the next paragraph where the cases are compared, illegal acts didn’t occur, but the union wins were overturned. Conversely, illegal conduct is immediate grounds to overturn an election or grant a rerun election. In the case of Jimmy Johns in Minnesota, the employer unlawfully fired six employees (NLRB-Jimmy …show more content…
The Savair Company case contained a waiver of monetary value for signing authorization cards similar to the case study offering free T-shirts for signing the petition (414 U.S., n.d.). The Pepsi and Mike Yurosek cases involved pictures. With the Pepsi Case, the reason for the videotaping was unclear. For the Mike Yurosek case, it was stated that it was to be used to have evidence of antiunion support misconduct. In comparison, the case study stated that the union is using it to publish in the USA Today and to remember the fun-filled …show more content…
The luncheon occurred away from company grounds during their designated break times. In comparing the Pepsi and Mike Yurosek cases, the employees were being filmed going to their place of employment truly without consent. In the case study, the employees voluntarily went to the union sponsored luncheon. In addition, the case study stated why the pictures were being taken. In comparison, no reason was given for the Pepsi Case.
How will the NLRB Rule
The NLRB will rule in favor of the union. The shirts were given to individuals that wanted to be part of the union and wearing a shirt showing support doesn’t change the outcome. Secondly, if someone is anti-union the likelihood of them wearing a shirt that said vote yes is highly unlikely, even if the shirts are free. Though pictures were taken by the union, it was a voluntary event that a member made a conscientious choice to attend.