Essay Example on Unfair Labor Practices: Violations of Employee Rights

Introduction

Unfair Labor Practice is a conduct by which an organization or a union violate or disobey the rights protected by the statute. Employees covered by the statute have the following reasons; protected by the law to represent the union and to file and pursue a grievance, also can seek union assistance, and the right to organize a union in any workplace. Some of the statutes that can be violated by an organization or an organization include; transferring an employee to undesirable places because of the filed ULP charges against the organization. Secondly, threatening an employee who has grievances, failure to grant an employee permission to start a union, and many others. The Federal Service Labor-Management Resolution Statute protects federal employees from their employers. The statute also protects employees' right to organize and bargaining collectively to participate collectively in labor organizations of their choice.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

How the Case Relates to The Course Learnings?

The case is an important part in human resources management as it brings out some of the issue that are affecting employers and employees in the workforce. Consequently, the case points out some of the issues that human resources management students should be aware of and how to solve conflict in the work force.

Discussion

NLRB Overturns Specialty Healthcare

National Labor Relations Board decided the PPC Structural Inc, 365 NLRB number 160 overruling the great test from the Healthcare. The PCC hence returns the Board's policy to the community of interest standard used in the NLRB's history. By overruling the specialty healthcare, they will have to focus on the commodity of the employees even the ones outside the petition units and the commodity on individuals within the petition ("Chapter IV. The NLRB Approach after Taft-Hartley," 1969)

In PCC structural firm, there are three centers (profit and loss centers) specifically in Portland, and every center is divided into two manufacturing processes. To begin with the front end, here employees make castings, the second process on the back-end workers inspect, redo, and create final processing on castings for use. In the petition, not all the employees in the two units were the complainant but only the rework welders in the profit and loss center. Besides, a vital repair worker from the front end was also included in the petition. It further connected to the elections in the year 2017, where most of the employees voted in the union. According to the director of the firm, he argued that the number of employees that petitioned was too small of which most of them are production and maintenance employees ("NLRB General Counsel Asserts Control," 2018). On that statement by the PCC Structural, the regional director finalized the issue by approving the petition. In that matter, the PCC failed to show their interest between the workers who petitioned for the unit. In his decision, the regional director concluded by saying the petition was "readily identifiable." In the ruling, 2-3 Board members overruled the healthcare since they realized it is fundamentally flawed ("NLRB General Counsel Asserts Control," 2018). The board reached this conclusion by analyzing the statutory role in understanding the appropriate form of the bargaining unit.

To add on that, the committee reached this conclusion by using the clause in section 9 of (NLRA) Act that clarifies that the board has the authority to determine the appropriateness of the units. To add to that, the committee found that the specialty healthcare standards underestimate the fulfillment of the statue's duty, which is under section 7 ("Chapter IV. The NLRB Approach after Taft-Hartley," 1969). The board pointed out that specialty healthcare underestimates the fulfillment of their responsibility that assures the worker's freedom, which is in section 7 of the NLRB Act. To replace the Healthcare, the Board brought back the Traditional community of interest standards that are included and the United Operation Inc.

Additionally, the board found that there is a need to weigh both excluded workers and the shared and separate interest for the employees. In arriving at this resolution, the Board noticed that at no time does the weight ever move to the business to demonstrate a vast network of enthusiasm between the rejected and requested for workers. Thus, the Board remanded the issue to the district for proper activity under the conventional network of-intrigue standard test.

Personal stand

With the conclusion of the board and the final judgment, workers will find it very difficult to have an election in smaller workers' units. This will make them see it more comfortable to determine that broad groupings of workers are the smallest appropriate unit. This will be to respond to the previous petitions on smaller groups.

Second Scenario

Confinements on wearing association symbols in none-understanding consideration regions, notwithstanding, are assumed unlawful except if the emergency clinic builds up "uncommon conditions," legitimizing the limitation. ("MHS") Works two medical clinics in that region. As is normal in clinics, workers from the MHS are needed to put distinguishing proof identifications. They are either appended to their uniform or joined to a retractable string pulley associated with an "identification reel." MHS kept up two strategies tested for this situation ("NLRB Voids Hospital ID Policy that Bans Union Insignia Without Regard to Patient Visibility," 2018).

To begin with, MHS kept up a strategy that necessary that "[o]nly MHS affirmed pins, identifications, and expert accreditations might be worn." Secondly, MHS kept up an arrangement appropriate to direct mind suppliers expressing that" edge reels may just be marked with Memorial Care endorsed contents or logos." In this manner, the approach precluded direct care suppliers from putting identification reels marked with association badge.

The Board decided that the medical clinic boss' disallowance of non-endorsed sticks and illegal identification overboard. When in doubt, representatives have the right to wear an association badge at work place without "unique conditions." In medical clinics, out of worry for the conceivable disturbance to patient consideration, the general standard is altered, and confinements on wearing association emblem are regarded legitimate on the off chance that they are restricted to prompt patient consideration regions ("Divided NLRB Penalizes Health Care Center for Selectively Banning Union Insignia," 2014).

Decision

The Board in the like manner held, opposing the vote of a contradicting Part. That the identification reel limitation was moreover invalid ("NLRB Voids Hospital ID Policy that Bans Union Insignia Without Regard to Patient Visibility," 2018). The contradiction emerged because the identification reel confinement applied distinctly to direct mind suppliers. The dominant part held this didn't spare the arrangement because the essential inquiry isn't the individual to whom the strategy employed. Yet the territory of the emergency clinic where it asked ("Divided NLRB Penalizes Health Care Center for Selectively Banning Union Insignia," 2014). The identification reel limitation was held invalid since it applied even in non-persistent consideration territories. As the more significant part noted, direct patient consideration suppliers fundamentally move all through the medical clinic and invest energy in non-understanding consideration regions.

References

Section IV. The NLRB Approach after Taft-Hartley. (1969). Association Approval Cards and the NLRB. doi:10.9783/9781512817973-006

Fisher, B. D. (n.d.). National Work Relations Board (NLRB). Reference book of Human services the board. doi:10.4135/9781412950602.n525

McFarland, A. R., and Priest, W. S. (1969). Association Approval Cards and the NLRB. doi:10.9783/9781512817973

NLRB General Direction Affirms Control. (2018). The executives Report for Nonunion Associations, 41(2), 8-8. doi:10.1002/mare.30363