1. Business
  2. Operations Management
  3. question 2 amp 3...

Question: question 2 amp 3...

Question details
Question 2 & 3
.וי Verizon LTE 2:25 PM ⓘ chrome://external-file Labor Law Discussion Case 2: Fired for Poor Driving, or Talking with a Union Organizer? could have been La Gloria Gas and ol Company operases a Texas refinery that are not represented by a union The drivers deliver oll products to varlious indus trial clients, somesmes several houes away. Linda Taylora maher the fect Secsion of the NLRA ofemployment that employs 14 truck drivers Discuss omemes sevenal hours awiay LindaTyo to hine or tenure of employment or any erm or condition Every 2 weeks to 6 monthh she submits written reports to the company isting varousinfractions she observes foilowing too closely, speeding, tailing to stop at rairead unfair labor practice question . The scemario in this case is a clsic B) at railroad havevlid tracks, missing a mud tap and the lke. No driver had been dhciplined or discharged for the violstions employee feeis that these reparted by an escuse to justty firing a union supporter. The question for the NLRB is whether the employers claims are legit mate or are instead simply a preet for firing the employee because of his union activity R is important for manage Taylo of the dnivers, Jose Garcia Chris Mueller, about so you got what you want, but theres no benetits. Around then contacted a union orpanizer work for La Gloriab some union iterature. Heyzes and decides these cases When an leged B iolation hinges on the employ ers motivstion (such as velild job performange issues ver- sus retribution for union activityl the NRB applies the by Wright Line, 25t NLRB 1083 1960) Approved by the Supreme Court in NLR.r Torts- portation Monagement Corp, 462 US 403 3 In thi framework the general counsel the prosecution) mus first show ther the erployee was engaged i, protected activity. (2 the employer wes aware of the acity and (3 the activity was a substantial ormotiweting eason for the employers action the genenal counsel establishes these facts, the bunden shifts to the employer to prove that would have taken the same action even d the employee other drivers about unionizing He met with a couple of times with two other driversfranework estabilished he also met with the organizer at a local nestaurant. Al of events ocourred in a span The day aher the meeting at the restaurant, super sor Mueler approsched another worker sked, Whats the rumor that 1 am hear-a ng The worker explained that the drivers had met with a union oganizer because they were upset at the lack of benefits He did not name the other workers at the workers at th eccumed with would have at the restaurant, Bom workhad not engeged in pronected acMy ers Indicated that Mueler was agitated and upuet and remarked that the refinery would probably get rid of the drivers unionized which would also put him QUESTIONS behalf of he discharged employee? () Gaicie was engaged in protected actity,(2 the employer wa Two days leter Taylor montored Garcias driving and called in a report to Mueler the nent day. Taylor Indicabed hat Garcia intermittenty exceeded the speed liit ran a ed light and ieft his surn signal tal or motivating reason for Garcles dischnge on for a long time. Mueler 2 Assuming that the first three requirements are argue on behaf of employer that Garcia would have been discharged even t he had not engaged in his protected activity? ส you were a menter erne NRB, hoe woove nle? what is the remedy? red light or exceeded the speed imit. Garcia denies being dicpined for tho prior incidents of insubordnation Tho a written memos in his personnel file are questionable-ey
Solution by an expert tutor
Blurred Solution
This question has been solved
Subscribe to see this solution