During a campaign to organize a union at Total Manufacturing Co., two employees of Total asked other employees in the break room at Total if they would sign cards indicating their support of the union. The Vice President for Human Resources for Total was in the break room at the time and overheard the conversation about signing cards to support the union. That Vice President said to the employees who had been asked to sign the cards supporting the union that they should know the facts before they signed the cards, that in signing the cards, if the union won the election, they were giving up their right to decide later if they wanted to join the union and that they would be required to pay union dues if the union won the election. The Vice President also told the employees that they would be obligated to be union members and pay union dues even if the union was not able to improve their pay or benefits through negotiations with Total.
Were the Vice President's statements an unlawful interference with the union organizing process? If so, what law applies?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 10:08 am ad1c9bdddf
The Vice President's statements were an unlawful interference with the union organizing process. The applicable law is Section 7 & 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. According to section 7 the law guarantees employees the right to self-organization, to form join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of own choosing an to engage in other concerted ...
This solution explains the interference in union formation in the context of Total Manufacturing. The sources used are also included in the solution.
Should card-check procedures be allowed to determine employees' desire for union representation or only formal representation elections? What result does it favor? What is the main objection to its use? How can that objection be moderated?View Full Posting Details