Decker Deals With The Unions

1. If Tom Decker’s conclusions are correct, he must move forward very carefully around his employees with his actions and comments. It does not matter in the eyes of the law that Tom Decker believes he pays his plant employees fairly and treats them well with strong and competitive benefits. Once the process of unionization has begun and it is apparent that he is aware of it, he must tread lightly and be sure that he does not commit any illegal actions or something that could lead to a filing of an unfair labor practice against his company with the National Labor Relations Board.

Regarding the matter of unionizing, Tom Decker should encourage his employees to listen to both sides before the vote takes place. That way his comments cannot be construed as discriminating against employees who are in favor of the union. If he makes his comments before the unionization vote occurs, he’s likely subject to less legal action than he would be if he proceeded down this path of action after a majority of employees potentially opted to join the United Food and Grocery Workers Union.

Decker should not make any derogatory comments about the specific union, or about unionization in general, in front of any of his current employees who may be weighing the pros and cons of such a move. He should also be extra careful not to comment about the employees that he thinks are driving the push to unionize for several reasons. Decker should be wary of a potential claim against him should unionization actually occur, and he should be wary of the individuals he perceives to be retaliating against him, even if their attempts to unionize have nothing to do with Decker on a personal level. It may come across as difficult for Decker to separate the two. He should also be conscientious about workplace morale, as he will want to keep as many employees as possible satisfied with the way their current workplace conditions exist. Alienating employees ahead of a critical unionization vote could lead to a situation that Decker would like to avoid.

2. Tom Decker is convinced that his employees are pleased with the wages and benefits they are receiving, so he seems to find it odd that his workers are attempting to unionize, but it appears Decker has not considered other factors that may be motivating his employees to join a union outside of primary financial concerns.

The case study states that Decker’s employees are currently staffed for three eight-hour shifts. Employees may be interested in working two twelve-hour shifts or having some other form of regulation for their hours. The overnight shift may be of particular contention, or it is possible that employees just want more consistency in their workplace hours. A union may be able to step in and regulate business hours for the plant, which would likely be attractive to its employees, and reduce workplace absenteeism.

Just because Decker says his employees are satisfied with their wages and benefits does not mean that they have faith in the status of their job security. Another major reason to unionize is to help provide certainty in their employment status. Workers may be looking for secured employment and a union can help with that. Additionally, just on a reading of the case study, it would seem that Decker is quick to rush to fire the employees he is not satisfied with, and that could mean that he has had a quick trigger finger with other workers, leading to decreased morale and other employees fearing that they may also lose their positions with relative ease. A union would guard against that, or, at the very least, offer a place to file a grievance in the event of termination that would act as an advocate on behalf of the no-longer-employed worker.

3. Much like he should be very careful about what he says to his employees, Tom Decker should also make sure to be conscientious about what he does with the two employees that he believes are behind the push to unionize. It would be advisable for Decker to not take any action against the two men at this time. There are several reasons for this recommendation.

To begin with, the case study states that Tom has asked his cousin to be his eyes and ears during shifts in regards to the push to gain union representation. The study then mentions the name “Lew Spencer” in the very next sentence. Based on the structure of the case study, it is not unreasonable, to conclude that Lew Spencer is Tom’s cousin. But in any regard, Lew is defined clearly as a shift supervisor and therefore is among those whom Tom asked to keep an ear open for information regarding the unions. If Lew is, in fact as suspected, Tom’s cousin, then the information from Lew is already somewhat questionable. Lew could perhaps be perceived as biased and it is possible that Tom may face repercussions for having family do some dirty work on the floor for him.

The information that shows that Jason Higgins, who is a long-time employee with about twenty-three years on the job, is part of the push comes directly from Lew Spencer. Lew describes Higgins as a “hothead” who can also be vehemently opposed to making changes at work. While these are not necessarily desirable qualities in an employee, the case study clearly states that there are no complaints in his personnel file. This is in stark contrast to Bill Vance’s file, who has received formal reprimand for attendance and job performance after only two years on the job. The description of Higgins as quick-to-anger comes from Lew, and it is not known if Tom has also been a witness to this, making any action taken against Higgins purely based on word-of-mouth information and speculation that he is one of the leaders in favor of unionizing. There are reasons outside of a push to unionize in favor of terminating Bill Vance’s employment at the plant, but it appears much more difficult to justify similar action should it be taken against Jason Higgins.

Beyond that, it is undoubtedly worth noting that it is illegal to punish employees who are in favor of, or have voted positively for, attempting to become part of a union. Taking action now against either Bill Vance, though potentially justified because of the findings in his personnel file, or Jason Higgins would be inadvisable at best. Tom is better off allowing the men to continue their alleged push to join a union and dealing with the repercussions of the vote than he is taking action against the two men who are accused of trying to orchestrate the actions. According to the case study, Tom does not have concrete evidence that absolutely proves Higgins and Vance are the ringleaders, though even if he did, action would still be incredibly risky.

4. It remains important for Tom Decker and plant management to present their side of the argument against unionization, but they must do so in a way that does not make it seem as though they are tampering or interfering with a potential vote, which, according to the case study, has not happened yet.

To that end, it does not seem advisable for the plant to raise its wages and benefits yet, but management should make it clear that they are willing to, and will, revisit salaries following the vote. There must still be reason for employees to be willing not to vote yes in favor of unionization, and it does not seem fair that only the union gets to present their case, while the plant’s current management must sit idly by while workers are told about the benefits of joining the United Food and Grocery Workers Union.

However, it remains critically important for Tom Decker and the management not to come across as tampering with the vote. Such action that could potentially be construed as tampering would be firing the two men perceived as organizing the union action. It does not seem that presenting their case and informing employees about the company’s future plans would fall under the same situation, as this is something that would almost undoubtedly occur at a company even if the potential threat of unionization was not on the table.

5. An exclusive bargaining agent is a term meant to describe any entity that has been designated as the sole authority to act on behalf of employees. In this case, the United Food and Grocery Workers Union would be the exclusive bargaining agent, meaning that it would be up to UFGWU and UFGWU alone to negotiate and act for the plant’s employees. Essentially, an exclusive bargaining agent is an entity that is tapped to become the voice of the majority of a company’s employees.

In order for the Union Food and Grocery Workers Union to become the exclusive bargaining agent for the plant, a majority of the workers would need to vote in favor of joining this particular union. UFGWU would then be named the exclusive bargaining agent. That would mean UFGWU was certified as the plant’s exclusive bargaining agent and effectively unionized the plant’s employees.

6. An unfair labor practice claim can be filed by several different parties under the law. They are usually filed in the event that the employees or even management do not uphold their end of the contract with the other party. These are typically actions that violate the National Labor Relations Act, and claims are filed with and ultimately investigated by the National Labor Relations Board.

Such a claim can be filed against Tom Decker’s plant in a variety of instances. Some of these include discriminating against employees that are involved in union activities, making it hard for employees to form a union or not bargaining with the union that has been named the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees.

There is a six-month statute of limitations for a filing with the National Labor Relations Board in regard to a specific incident that is prompting the accusations, though certain exemptions may apply, depending on the individual cases.

Once a claim is filed, it will be investigated by the National Labor Relations Board. Witnesses should be provided by the union that’s making the charges. In the case of Decker, if the investigator finds that there is substance driving the charge, a formal complaint is the next step. Then, there will likely be an attempt to settle the complaint between the filing party and Decker’s plant. That tends to be done before a formal complaint is actually issued, but this does not always happen. If Decker opts not to settle, then a hearing becomes the next step. A judge will hear the case and issues a decision after listening to all of the evidence. There is, as in criminal and civil courts, the option for the losing party to appeal the ruling.

In review, if Decker’s plant receives an unfair labor practice complaint within the six months time frame, the company will be subject to an investigation, will have the opportunity to settle before court, and, without settling, will find itself the subject of a National Labor Relations Board hearing, with the option to appeal should it lose. If the company appeals and loses again on appeal, it will be required to comply with the judge’s decision.