Intro Since these decisions are legal rulings and written in legal language, they are more difficult to read than news articles or a book read for entertainment. It was necessary to read several decisions before finding these three that held my interest and that I felt would hold a reader’s interest for the length of this paper. They are varied in focus and the reasons for the actions being brought to the NLRB. I chose them because they involve employees, but seem to focus more on disputes between management and unions rather than employee rights, which is what I originally thought the NLRB would be concerned.
The first case I reviewed was Union-Tribune Publishing Co., and Graphic ...view middle of the document...
They were also required to submit to a drug and alcohol test due to recent changes in OSHA rules.
Both employees tested positive for drug use. They were suspended for five days and advised they would need to submit to another test at the end of the suspension. If the test results indicated the same or higher levels of drugs in their system, their employment would be terminated. The second test resulted in higher levels for both employees and they were terminated.
The union made several arguments designed to show the hearing tests were not conducted in the same manner for all employees. Their examples showed that some employees did not receive letters instructing them they had to retest, some did not get a second test, some were sent to the company doctor, and others were sent off site.
The two primary arguments made by the union included the company’s failure to notify the union in advance of changing the testing policy, and improperly testing the two employees which resulted in termination of employment.
The case resulted in the company being required to notify the union and all employees of the changes to the testing policy, and to enter into bargaining with the union on instituting the changes. The employees were not reinstated.
After reading this case, I was surprised that the employees were not reinstated. No reason was ever specified; in fact it appeared to be only mentioned in passing when stating the judge did not agree that the employees were wrongfully discharged.
I agreed with the final decision that the company should have notified employees and the union of the changes to the policy before subjecting employees to drug and alcohol screenings. While I have little knowledge of unions outside the classroom, as a member of management I think it is good practice to provide advance notice of any policy or procedural changes to allow for a period of discussion before implementation.
I think the union did not do enough for the employees in their effort to get them rehired. The focus of the arguments seemed to rest more on proving a lack of consistent procedures for conducting hearing tests than demonstrating it was incorrect to test for drugs or alcohol for failing a hearing test. I would have done more to see the employees were rehired.
The second case was Bally’s Park Place Inc., d/b/a Bally’s Atlantic City and International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 4-RC-21286. This was a case involving the objections to a ruling concerning a vote to have the union represent the dealers working at the casino. The main objection was that the casino management asked the union to supply pamphlets and voting materials in a number of languages to accommodate the dealers and the union refused. The management reasoned the election should be overturned because of the lack of translated documents. The judge did not agree.
There were other objections including the union influencing...