Explore BrainMass

Health and Safety Workplaces

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Read the Application Case attached. Answer the following questions based on labor relations and collective bargaining.

a. Evaluate the various claims made by the union and counterclaims made by the company regarding the charges of unfair labor practices. Which of the arguments are most persuasive?
b. Was the statement by Nord to Snow on the date of the representational election a threat or a legitimate prediction and personal opinion protected by the free speech provisions of the act? Why, or why not?
c. Was the company obligated to accept the union's majority status claim on the basis of the authorization cards submitted by the union? Explain your answer.
d. If the company is found to have violated the act, what would be the appropriate remedy: a bargaining order or anew election? Explain your answer.

Read the Application Case. Answer the following question based on promoting safet and health in the workplace. Your response should be at least 3 pages in length, and you should cite references relied upon for your answers. What should Cindy do, and why? Frame your answer in terms of a safe and healthy workplace.

Please cite references for both case studies.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 9:18 am ad1c9bdddf


Solution Preview

a. Evaluate the various claims made by the union and counterclaims made by the company regarding the charges of unfair labor practices. Which of the arguments are most persuasive?

The arguments that are most persuasive is with the company because the claims with the union are illegitimate. The union is the one who blamed the organization for unfair labor practices when all they were doing was protecting their employees; however, neither were helping either party. In fact, the union was doing nothing for their workers because one of them, specifically Alice Coleman became silent when asked. What is interesting is that the subordinates of the business were wanting to form a union, which is why Larry Melton got terminated, and then after he lost his job, they decided to give everyone health benefits in the workplace. In reality, both of them were in violation because no one was getting the necessary help working for either of them.

However, the strongest is still that of the company. They defend themselves quite well in regards to all of their actions, but the Union only decides to point fingers in that process rather than responsibility themselves too. Melton was getting nowhere with his work, and encouraged everyone not to sign anything because of the Union not assisting them in any way possible. Because of that, the company chose to take action against him for not following protocol, yet he was the good employee seeking to help others when no one else was receiving it.

In fact, OSHA has laws and regulations when it comes to safety and health in the workplace, and that is mandatory for both part-time and full-time employees. The company was to actually provide it to their employees after getting hired, and not a ...

Solution Summary

This solution discussed two case studies with much detail on how to handle the situations.

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Workplace Safety and Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act

On the one hand, the OSH Act requires that employers provide a safe workplace, free of hazards. On the other hand, there are very real legal and ethical concerns in requiring AIDS tests of employees or potential employees. Discuss this "quagmire" of addressing that OSH Act requirement and employees' rights of workplace safety, versus one's right to privacy and due process. What would you, as an employer, recommend? How do other organizations address this?

View Full Posting Details