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, …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.