Labor Law Exam

Front 1

What is the significance of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin?

Back 1

1. Gave NLRB co-extensive Jurisdiction with Congress to legislate under the commerce clause. Creates a very broad interpretation of what "employers" fall under the act.
a.) if there goods go directly or indirectly into interstate commerce
b.) if they receive G from out of state
c.) engaged in any type of commerce.

Front 2

What is the rule from NLRB v. Hearst Publications Inc?
Good Law?

Back 2

R: Independent K's should be covered under NLRA b/c they are so much like employees.
THIS WAS OVERTURNED BY CONGRESSIONAL ACT WHICH EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES INDEPENDENT K'S FROM THE ACTS PROTECTION

Front 3

NLRB v. Living and Learning Centers?

Back 3

R: Presumption is for single-plant/single store bargaining units. To overcome must show "a functional integration so severe as to negate the identity" of the one bargaining unit facility.

Front 4

Borden Inc. v. NLRB?

Back 4

R: Board can require employer to follow old CBA and apply that to employees transfered from a different location until a new CBA can be negotiated.

Front 5

Gitano Group?

Back 5

R: When an employee is transferred there is a presumption that they still support the old union therefore the employer must recognize that union at the new location.

Front 6

Charles D. Bonanno Linen v. NLRB?
(Multi-employer Unit)

Back 6

R: Just because there is an impasse with a multi-employer unit is not sufficiently destructive of group bargaining to justify unilateral withdrawal.

Front 7

NLRA §9(c)(1)?

Back 7

If a question of representation exists on a filed petition, the board must resolve it through an secret ballot election. (details left to the board).

Front 8

Excelsior Rule?
AKA Excelsior list...

Back 8

Per NLRB, 7 days after an election has been directed or agreed upon the employer must provide the board with a list of the names and addresses of eligible voters.
RULE Sustained by: NLRB v. Wyman Gordon Co.

Front 9

Universal Manufacturing Corp Rule?

Back 9

For election propaganda to be in compliance of the act it must meet the following:
1.) Statements must be truthful, temperate, and germane to the parties position.
2.) Must not deliberately seek to overstress or exacerbate feelings by irrelevant, inflammatory feelings.

Front 10

General Shoe Doctrine?

Back 10

R: Where a group of employees is brought together in some "locus of authority in the plant" (as this is an area where the employers statement might be particularly influential) this means of dissemination may overstep permisible bounds...

Front 11

Peerless Plywood Rule?

Back 11

"24 Hour Captive Audience Rule"
R: Either party (Employer or Union) is prohibited from making election speeches on company time to assemblies of employees for 24 hours prior to the election.

Front 12

Dal-Tex Optical Rule?

Back 12

8(a)(1) violations (interference, restraint, or coercion against union) automatically automatically interferes with free elections.

Front 13

Shopping Carts Food Mkts Rule?

Back 13

R: Elections will only be set aside by the board for coercive tactics, threats of reprisal, deceptive practices - NOT MISLEADING STATEMENTS...

Front 14

NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.?

Back 14

R: When an employer has so interfered with a union's organization activities that an impartial election would no longer be possible, a majority can be decided based only on authorization cards but the cards must clearly state their purpose on there face.
Note - If, under this situation, the employer still refuses to bargain then its an unfair labor practice.

Front 15

Linden Lumber Division v. NLRB?

Back 15

R: If the employer is not guilty of unfair labor practice then he is under no obligation to recognize the union by any other means than an election.

Front 16

Brooks v. NLRB?

Back 16

Duration of Duty to Bargain:
R: A rep. selected by the employees and certified by the NLRB must be recognized for a "reasonable period".
NOTE - This applies even if the employees disavow the rep immediately after the certification.

Front 17

Election Bar?

Back 17

R: If there is a valid election of a representative union then such union must be recognized for a period of at least 1 year. (i.e. no elections for a year) After 1 year the presumption of majority status becomes rebuttable.

Front 18

Airport Shuttle - Cincinnati v. NLRB?

Back 18

R: Inaction during the certification year will not constitute a waiver of the unions bargaining rights.

Front 19

**NLRB v. Curtain Matheson Scientific?

Back 19

R: Permanent replacements hired in place of striking employees during an economic strike cannot be presumed anti-union for the purposes of establishing a good faith doubt to majority status.

Front 20

**NLRB v. Mackay Radio?

Back 20

R: An employer does not need to discharge permanent replacements at the conclusion of an economic strike to make room for returning strikers. Employers must only reinstate strikers as vacancies occur.

Front 21

8(a)(5)?

Back 21

R: It is an unfair labor practice for the employer to refuse to bargain with the representative designated by a majority of the employees in the unit.

Front 22

Lechmere v. NLRB?

Back 22

The Jean Country balancing test only applies when it is determined that the non-employee organizers had no reasonable access to employees...This is rare!

Front 23

Marshall Field & Co. v. NLRB?

Back 23

R: Retail stores may generally ban solicitation and distribution in the selling area even during employee's non-working time in order to avoid customer confusion.

Front 24

Burger King Corp. v. NLRB?

Back 24

R: Projecting a clean appearance to the public is a "legitimate production reason" to prohibit the wearing of union buttons and insignia.
NOTE - Generally however you cannot prevent this.

Front 25

NLRB v. Magnavox Corp.?

Back 25

R: Solicitation or distribution rights of employees are not subject to waiver thus unions cannot agree to CBA provision that propose to do this.

Front 26

NLRB v. United Steel Workers (NuTone Inc.)?

Back 26

R: An employer that enforces a no solicitation policy while at the same time engaging in anti-union solicitation himself DOES NOT automatically constitute an unfair labor practice.

Front 27

NLRB v. Virginia Electric and Power Co.?

Back 27

R: Unless an employers opinions, based on the totality of his conduct, are coercive, they do not constitute an unfair labor practice.

Front 28

NLRA 8(c)?

Back 28

Codifies Employer right to free speech.
To make a determination regarding the coercive nature of an employers statements, the court is going to look at his position of economic superiority and, based on that, measure the effect that statement is going to have on the employee.

Front 29

NLRB v. Virginia Electric and Power &
NLRB v. Pentre Electric?

Back 29

R: Statements that contain neither threats of reprisals or promises may still be found to be coercive because of the context in which they are uttered.

Front 30

Blue Flash Inc.?

Back 30

R: Interrogations of employees is limited to those that do not carry any implied threat of reprisal or in any other way interfere with, restrain, or coerce in the exercise of rights guaranteed in §7.

Front 31

Struksnes Standards?

Back 31

(This refined Blue Flash)- R: An employers polling of employees will be unlawful unless:
1.) Poll is to determine truth of the unions claim of majority.
2.) Employees are aware of that reason.
3.) Assurance is given against reprisal.
4.) The employee's are polled by secret ballot.
5.) No unfair labor practice or coercive atmosphere created by the employer.

Front 32

NLRB v. Exchange Parts?

Back 32

R: During a union organization campaign the employer must conduct "business as usual" with respect to personnel policies and practices.
i.e. Employer cannot do anything that is going to look like he is trying to influence the employees to vote against the union (raises, vacation). Will be an ULP if he does.

Front 33

Violence?

Back 33

R: Violence or threat of violence to deter union organization are clearly unlawful.

Front 34

Espionage and Surveillance?

Back 34

R: Employers who photograph or videotape employees engaged in concerted activities during organization campaigns will be found in violation of 8(a)(1) relating to interference with union organization.
NOTE - Employer can overcome this if they demonstrate special circumstances warranting such action.

Front 35

8(a)(2)?

Back 35

R: It is an unfair labor practice for an employer to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration or any labor organization or to contribute financial or other support to it.

Front 36

NLRB v. Cabot Carbon Co.?

Back 36

R: Employee Committees are labor unions within the meaning of 8(a)(2) if they act in a representative capacity and deal with the employer regarding basic terms of employment.

Front 37

Electromation v. NLRB?

Back 37

R: Determining the difference between an independent labor organization and an employer dominated organization lies in assessing the power of the organization to determine its own actions.

Front 38

International Ladies Garment Workers Union v. NLRB?

Back 38

R: The exclusive recognition of a minority union constitutes unlawful support in violation of 8(a)(2) because it gives the union an advantage over the others in securing the adherence of the employees.

Front 39

8(a)(3)?

Back 39

R: It is unlawful for an employer to discourage or encourage membership in any labor organization by discrimination in regard to hiring or tenure of employment or with respect to any term or condition of employment.
NOTE - For Discrimination under this section an "improper motive" must be demonstrated - i.e. an intent by an employer to effect union affiliation or activity on the part of the employees.

Front 40

International Brotherhood of teamsters Local 357 v. NLRB?

Back 40

R: Hiring Halls are not per se illegal. Union can negotiate a CBA that grants them exclusive control over the hiring hall from which employer must obtain all employees.
NOTE -Cannot create a closed shop!!

Front 41

§7?

Back 41

R: Protects the rights of employees to organize for collective bargaining purposes and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.

Front 42

NLRB v. City Disposal Systems?

Back 42

R: Filing of a grievance is a concerted activity and thus protected under the act.

Front 43

Mastro Plastics v. NLRB?

Back 43

R: If there is a lawful strike over an unfair labor practice, the strikers are entitled to re-instatement during or after the strike even if it necessary to discharge replacements.
NOTE - Employees must submit unconditional applications for re-instatement before the employer is obligated to re-hire.

Front 44

NLRB v. International Van Lines?

Back 44

R: If you fire economic striking employees prior to hiring replacements the employer will be required to unconditionally re-instate as the termination was an unfair labor practice.

Front 45

NLRB v. Truck Drivers Local 449?

Back 45

R: Employer may, in anticipation of a strike, lawfully lock out employees when:
1.) Collective Bargaining Negotiations have reached an impasse
2.) Special Circumstances such as threat of imminent or irreparable economic loss

Front 46

American Ship Building Co. v. NLRB?

Back 46

R: When a bargaining impasse is reached a temporary lay-off is permissible even if it is used solely to create pressure on the union.

Front 47

Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Mfg.?

Back 47

R: An employer has an absolute right to go out of business for any reason. But has to be the whole business.

Front 48

Clear Pine Moldings Inc?

Back 48

R: As a general rule an employer may not use the degree of participation of a strike as an assessment on whether or not to reinstate the striker.

Front 49

J.J. Case v. NLRB?

Back 49

R: Employer may not negotiate individual contracts w/the employees or use the existence of individual K's as a reason for refusing to bargain with the union.

Front 50

Emporium Capwell Co. v. Western Addition Community Organization?

Back 50

R: Individual employee's who engage in concerted activities without union approval are not protected by §7 from discipline.

Front 51

General Electric Co.?

Back 51

R: An employer who maintains a take it or leave it attitude in negotiations may have engaged in bad faith bargaining.

Front 52

Test for Good faith/Bad Faith?

Back 52

Total Course of Conduct---Look at everything!

Front 53

NLRB v. American National Insurance?

Back 53

R: IF there is an impasse the Act does not require that you continue in fruitless negotiations.

Front 54

HK Porter Co. v. NLRB?

Back 54

R: When somebody refuses to bargain in good faith, the board may order the bargaining on the subject and enforce the order through court contempt proceedings.

Front 55

NLRB v. Katz?

Back 55

R: An employer who takes unilateral action against his employee will be deemed to have refused to bargain in good faith.
NOTE - might be OK there is an economic exigency...big burden of employer though...

Front 56

NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing?

Back 56

R: Where an employer argues an inability to pay (i.e. pay increases or salary) the union has a right upon request to obtain information from the employer to sustain the claim.

Front 57

NLRB v. Acme Industries?

Back 57

R: Where the union requests information concerning a legitimate purpose and the employer fails to provide could be held for 8(a)(5) refusal to bargain.

Front 58

NLRB v. Borg-Warner?

Back 58

R: If the subject is bargainable and and if it is not compulsory the employer and the union may bargain collective about the subject only if both choose to do so.

Front 59

Allied Chemical v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass?

Back 59

R: To be a mandatory subject of bargaining the issue in question must "vitally effect" the terns and conditions.

Front 60

Fibreboard Paper Products v. NLRB?

Back 60

R: An employer may have a duty to bargain with the union before making such economically motivated...