HRMD 620
Week 3
Exam #1
Note:
Submissions will not be accepted after grades for this assignment have been
posted. Alternate assignments are not
available.
This early
assignment should give you a chance to check your understanding of the course
material so you can change, if needed, before the semester progresses too
far. This test is not intended to cover
all the key points about the material you’ve read in the first three weeks; the
reading material we’ve had so far may also be included in following, more
extensive tests.
Description:
MCj04123960000[1]Instructions: Each
class is likely to be different. If you
assume you know what is required, you may make a mistake that can be avoided
just by reading the instructions.
Post your
Answer Sheet in your individual assignment folder by the due date listed in the
Course Schedule. Please post on time to
avoid the 5% per day late penalty required by departmental policy. Remember the late window begins at 12:00 a.m.
the next day. Please don’t ask me after
the deadline to waive a late penalty. If
you’re having a problem that matches the criteria in the grading policy,
contact me before the deadline. I help
when I can. (See the Grading Information in the syllabus.)
Please work
alone; this is not a group assignment.
Do not use
any work that has been submitted to a previous class. (See the Grading Information in the
syllabus. This is also part of the
Academic Integrity pledge you signed.)
Do not use
a cover sheet. Just be sure your name is
on the Answer Sheet. The blank Answer
Sheet is in the Course Content area, in the same place as the exam.
Remember to
use a Word .doc or .docx file format to ensure I can open your
work. (See the Grading Information in
the syllabus.)
Please do
not retype the information or annotate your multiple-choice response. Any confusion in the answer will be
interpreted as an error. Just list the response by the number on the Answer
Sheet.
Please do
use APA to reference your essay/case response. Create a reference list at the
end and use the (author, year) format within the text; or, if it is a direct
quote, the (author, year, page number) format.
Please do not start a new page only for the reference list; just space
down after your last response.
Please
realize that I cannot answer questions that are actually part of the test
itself. That violates testing
methodology. I can address
“administrative type” questions. Post questions to the Exam 1 discussion area
(vs. email) so everyone will have the same information.
Please be
sure you have submitted the document you intended. Double-check by opening your document in your
folder after you’ve submitted it.
Tips for
Success
Be sure you
have answered all the questions. From time
to time, I see students number incorrectly or omit questions.
Allow
sufficient time to think, revise, and think again about your answers before
producing the final document. As soon as
you have the exam, read what is needed.
During the week, think about how to answer the questions. Jot down ideas to consider. Create an outline of the content you want to
include in the written portion. Then,
assemble the parts into a coherent response.
Use the
free writing support tools that are accessed via the classroom. Allow enough time for the writing tutors to
assist. Access to that service is in the
Content area.
Part A –
Knowledge Check (20% of the test; 2
points each)
1. T or F:
The National Labor Relations Act applies to non-union companies.
2. T or F:
As the primary union in the U.S., the key function of the AFL-CIO is to
negotiate contracts.
3. T or F:
The Mainstream Economics school of thought about labor relations relies
on free-market competition to determine the price of labor; and, as such, sees
unions as interference in that process.
4. T of F:
The Wagner Act governs labor relations for United Airlines.
5. T or F:
Unions seek to give equity and voice a place in decisions that might
otherwise be driven by efficiency.
6. T or F:
The Haymarket Tragedy was part of the struggle for an 8-hour workday.
7. T or F:
In the U.S., the default policy for the employment relationship is the
employment-at-will doctrine; but, federal policy also encourages the use of
collective bargaining which limits it.
8. T or F:
Overall union density has decreased since the 1970s because the private
sector
growth has increased while the public
sector membership has declined.
9. T or
F: Current U.S. labor law is based on
the assumption that a balance between
management’s and labor’s power benefits
society in general.
10. T or
F: Property rights are a major basis
for management’s authority and control.
Part B –
Case Analysis (18% of the test; 3 points each)
1. Earl’s supervisor instructed him to write
the monthly report for the county government’s Agency for Municipal Parks. Feeling overworked, he complained to Matt, a
peer with the same job classification. Earl remarked that this was beyond the
scope of his job description. Matt agreed.
He said that funding for the county’s public parks programs was cut in
the last election, so everyone was being asked to double-up on
responsibilities. Earl suggested calling
a meeting of all the Assistants in the department to see what could be done.
T or
F: The concerted activity provision of
NLRA Section 7 would protect this group of Assistants if they encountered
retaliation for challenging the supervisor’s direction.
2. Six workers in a retail store were in the
break room discussing the raise they expected to receive next month. They noted that it was not as much as last
year’s raise. They wondered how they
could request an increase and agreed to work together to find a way. They lowered their voices when the HR
Director came in for a cup of coffee because discussing people’s compensation
was against company policy.
Two weeks
later, the 6 workers were terminated.
They were the only employees to be let go. They were surprised and began to compare
notes. They knocked on the HR Director’s
door to ask for an explanation. The HR
Director explained that the company appreciated their contributions but
reminded them that, as they acknowledged when they were hired, their employment
was at-will. That meant the company did
not need to give a reason and there was nothing more to be done.
T or
F: The HR Director’s explanation that
the state’s employment-at-will doctrine will be the legal framework to govern
this scenario was correct.
3. Erin and 3 of her co-workers have a
standard set of lotto numbers that they collectively play each week. If they ever match the winning ticket, they
will split the money.
On her
Facebook page, Erin posts that she can’t wait to win so she can quit work. The
others respond in agreement.
T or
F: If management fired them for gambling
at work, the NLRA Section 7 concerted activity provision would protect this
group.
4. When the manager of business operations
told Paula that she had to work on the night shift at the retail store for the
next few months, she left him a note saying this was unfair and she would not
do it. The manager called her the next
day to see why she objected. Paula said
she did not have someone to look after her child at night. The manager replied that she was the last one
to be hired and she would have to make arrangements to do it. Paula said this was discrimination, and the
discussion became heated. The manager
fired her.
T or
F: If Paula filed a complaint under the
NLRA, the Section 7 concerted activity provision would protect her.
5. When the owner of an urgent care company
announced to his staff of 10 that he would immediately cut wages by 10% to save
the business from bankruptcy, employees were stunned and unhappy. After several conversations, they decided to
write a joint, anonymous, respectful letter to express staff concerns and offer
alternatives for saving
money, such
as eliminating the employer match to the 401K fund. The letter was written by the center’s
physician’s assistant and edited by its radiation technologist. It was then
left unsigned on the doctor’s desk.
During the next few weeks, the owner met with individual employees in an
attempt to learn who wrote the letter,
and the
atmosphere became increasingly tense. He accused several employees of
whispering and cliquish behavior, and repeatedly complained of “toxic talk” and
negativity”. A little over three weeks
after the letter was delivered, the technologist was fired. The owner then learned by examining the
technologist’s work emails that the physician’s assistant had written the
letter. The next day, she was fired as well.
T or
F: The letter meets the legal criteria
for a concerted activity.
6. Brittney transferred to HR a couple
months ago from an assistant’s position in the marketing department. Her first major assignment has been to update
the employee handbook. She has been gathering
examples from other organizations to copy into her draft. Here is one she is recommending because it
seems clear and specific. It easy to
understand.
Unauthorized
Interviews: As a means of protecting yourself and the company, no unauthorized
interviews are permitted to be conducted by individuals representing themselves
as attorneys, peace officers, investigators, reporters, union representatives,
or someone who wants to “ask a few questions.” If you are asked questions about
the company or its current or former employees, you are not permitted to speak
as a representative of the company. Please refer that individual(s) to your
supervisor. A decision will then be made as to whether that individual may
conduct any interview and they will be introduced to you by your supervisor
with a reason for the questioning. Similarly, if you are aware that an
unauthorized interview is occurring at the company, immediately notify your
supervisor.
T or F: Having this rule is illegal under the June,
2018 NLRB’s guidelines.
Part C - Case Analysis (62% of the test)
In the case
below, an employee files a Section 8(a)1 complaint with the NLRB against his
employer for firing him. The employer
asserts that it has terminated the employee lawfully. After reading the facts of the case, explain
what the decision should be (who should win).
Also explain any remedies that are needed. Be sure to identify the legal concepts
involved and use details from the case to show evidence in support of your
position. Please limit your analysis to
2-3 double-spaced pages.
Tip –
Consider:
1) What is the employee’s argument? Why does he think he was fired? In his view, which specific provision in the
NLRA was broken? What does the provision
require? Using the NLRA requirements, discuss whether the facts in this case
support the employee’s position that his termination constituted an unlawful
labor practice.
2) What is the employer’s argument? Why did it fire the employee? Does the NLRA prohibit that reason? Using the NLRA requirements, discuss whether
the facts in this case support the employer’s decision to terminate the
employee.
3) As the NLRB judge, who do you think is
right? Which side has the right reason,
legal framework, and details (evidence) to support its interpretation of the
law?
4) If a violation occurred, what needs to be
done to correct it? (This is the
remedy.)
Car
Dealer’s Case
Organization
This
company has two dealerships in Springfield, Illinois; one sells trucks, and the
other sells luxury cars. Jack, the
employee who was fired, began working at the truck dealership in 2002. He changed to the luxury dealership in 2008
where he worked until he was fired in 2014.
People
Involved
Compensation
Plan
There are
three contributing elements to the pay of the salespersons: the first is a
25-percent commission of the profit derived from the sale of the vehicle, the
profit being the difference between the selling price and the cost of the
vehicle. The second element is based upon volume; in order to qualify for this
bonus, the salesperson must sell 12 cars in a month, including, at least, 2
used cars. The final element is the Customer Satisfaction Index, which is based
upon survey questionnaires sent to customers who purchased a car.
Employee
Handbook
The
employee handbook included the following rule:
(b)
Courtesy: Courtesy is the responsibility of every employee. Everyone is
expected to be courteous, polite and friendly to our customers, vendors and
suppliers, as well as to their fellow employees. No one should be disrespectful
or use profanity or any other language which injures the image or reputation of
the Dealership.
Facebook
Postings
The event
pages are entitled: “(luxury) 2014 5 Series Soiree.” On the first page, Jack
posted: “I was happy to see that
(dealer) went ‘All Out’ for the most important launch of a new (luxury car) in
years . . . the new 5 series. A car that will generate tens in millions of
dollars in revenues for the dealer over the next few years. The small 8 oz bags
of chips, and the $2.00 cookie plate from Sam’s Club, and the semi fresh apples
and oranges were such a nice touch . . . but to top it all off . . . the Hot
Dog Cart. Where our clients could attain an overcooked wiener and a stale bun.”
Underneath were comments by Jack’s relatives and friends, followed by Jack’s
responses. On the following page there is a picture of Dutch with his arm
around the woman serving the hot dogs, and the following page has a picture of
Dutch with a hot dog. Page 4 shows the snack table with cookies and fruit. Page 5 shows one of the sales people holding
bottles of water, with a comment posted by Jack: “No, that’s not champagne or wine, it’s 8 oz.
water. Pop or soda would be out of the question.” In this photo, a salesperson is seen coveting
the rare vintages of water that were available for our guests. Page 6 shows the
sign depicting the new luxury 5 Series car with Jack’s comment below: “This is
not a food event. What ever made you realize that?” The final two pages again
show the food table and Dutch holding a hot dog.
The
pictures of the truck accident, as well as Jack’s comments, on the Facebook
page were: The caption is “This is your car: This is your car on drugs.” The
first picture shows the car, the front part of which was in the pond. The salesperson with a blanket around her is
sitting next to a woman, and a young boy is holding his head. Jack wrote, “This is what happens when a
sales person sitting in the front passenger seat (Former Sales Person,
actually) allows a 13 year old boy to get behind the wheel of a 6000 lb. truck
built and designed to pretty much drive over anything. The kid drives over his
father’s foot and into the pond in all about 4 seconds and destroys a $50,000
truck. OOOPS!” There are a number of
comments on the first page, one of which was from an employee of the company in
the warranty department, stating: “How did I miss all the fun stuff?” On the
second page, under the photo of the car in the pond, Jack wrote: “I love this
one . . . The kid’s pulling his hair out . . . Du, what did I do? Oh no, is Mom
gonna give me a time out?” Below, there were comments from two of the company’s
employees. On a separate Facebook page,
one of a service advisor employed by the company, there was Jack’s picture of
the car in the pond with the service advisor’s own comment: “Finally, some
action at our truck store.”
Sequence of
Events
Unless
otherwise noted, the parties essentially do not dispute these facts. Unless otherwise indicated, all dates
referred to here are for 2014.
Sometime
between June 5 and June 9
All the
sales people met in Sam’s office to discuss the upcoming event. Sam told them about the event, the incentives
being offered, and what was expected of them.
Sam testified that someone asked about the food but he doesn’t remember
what was said. He did say the sales
people rolled their eyes “in amazement.”
Jack testified this scenario: He
told Sam, “I can’t believe we’re not doing more for this event.” Greg said the
same thing and added: “This is a major launch of a new product and . . . we
just don’t understand what the thought is behind it.” Sam responded: “This is
not a food event.” After the meeting the sales people spoke more about it and
Greg told Jack that at a competing luxury car’s dealership they served hors
d’oeuvres with servers. Greg also said,
“We’re the bread and butter store in the auto park and we’re going to get the
hot dog cart.” As to why this was important, Jack testified: Everything in life
is perception. X [ is] a luxury brand and . . . what I’ve talked about with all
my co-workers was the fact that what they were going to do for this event was
absolutely not up to par with the image of the brand, the ultimate driving
machine, a luxury brand. And we were concerned about the fact that it would . .
. affect our commissions, especially in the sense that it would affect . . .
how the dealership looks and, how it’s presented . . . when somebody walks into
our dealership . . . it’s a beautiful auto park . . . it’s a beautiful place .
. . and if you walk in and you sit down and your waiter serves you a happy meal
from McDonald’s. The two just don’t mix . . . we were very concerned about the
fact . . . that it could potentially affect our bottom line.
June 9
The car
promotion event occurred at the luxury dealer.
The car being introduced was a new model in their “bread and butter”
line. The event was significant enough
for the car manufacturers to attend and help sell to the customer. Jack took pictures of the sales people
holding hot dogs, water and Doritos and told them that he was going to post the
pictures on his Facebook page.
June 14
At the
company’s truck dealership, an accident occurred. A salesperson was showing a customer a truck
and allowed the customer’s 13-year-old son to sit in the driver’s seat of it
while the sales person was in the passenger seat, apparently, with the door
open. The customer’s son must have stepped on the gas pedal; the truck drove
down a small embankment, drove over the foot of the customer into an adjacent
pond, and the salesperson was thrown into the water (but was unharmed,
otherwise). Jack was told of the truck incident and could see it from the
facility. He got his camera and took pictures of the truck in the pond.
June 14
Jack posted
comments and pictures of the luxury event of June 9 as well as the truck
accident of June 14 on his Facebook page.
June 15
The company
representatives had learned of, and had been given copies of, Jack’s Facebook
postings for both the event and the accident.
Sam asked Jack to remove the postings, which he did.
June 16
At Harry’s
request, Jack met with him, Pete, and Sam in a conference room at the
dealership to discuss the postings.
Harry
tossed copies of the Facebook pages at him and said, “What were you thinking?”
Jack
responded that it was his Facebook page and his friends: “It’s none of your business.”
Harry
responded, “That’s what you’re going to claim?”
Jack
affirmed, “That’s exactly what I’m going to claim.”
Harry again
asked what he was thinking and Jack said that he wasn’t thinking anything.
Harry said
that they received calls from two other dealers and that he thoroughly
embarrassed all management and “all of your coworkers and everybody that works
at the dealership.” Pete then said, “You know, Jack, the photos at the truck
dealership are one thing, but the photos at the luxury dealer, that’s a whole
different ball game.” Jack responded that he understood. Harry then said that
they were going to have to think about what they were going to do with him, and
that they would contact him. Meanwhile, he was told to hand in the key to his
desk. On the way out, Jack told Sam that there was no maliciousness on his part
and Sam told him to let things settle down, and he left.
After he
got home, Jack called Pete and apologized for what had occurred; Pete testified
that he does not recall receiving any apology from Jack. Jack later called Dick
and apologized to him as well. Dick told
him that he should have apologized during the meeting with Harry, Pete, and
Sam.
Notes of
this June 16 meeting, taken by Pete, state that the meeting was to discuss: . .
. several negative articles on his Facebook directly pertaining to situations
which happened at the dealership. We
were alerted to this action by receiving calls from other truck dealers who saw
pictures/comments (negative) on the internet.
Harry showed Jack copies of the postings and posed the question what was
Jack thinking to do such a . . . thing to the company. (One posting was
regarding the accident at truck dealer when a truck was driven into the lake
and the second was surrounding our new 5 Series luxury car event.) Harry
testified that at the June 16 meeting he handed Jack the postings and asked why
he would do that and Jack said that it was his Facebook and he could do what he
wanted. He ended the meeting by telling Jack to go home and that they would
review this issue and get back to him.
June 21
A meeting
of Dick, Bill, Harry, Sam, Pete, and Bob.
Harry later testified that he saw both postings, but: “I will tell you that the thing that upset me
more than anything else was the truck issues. The luxury car issue, to me, was
somewhat comical, if you will . . . if it had been that, that would have been
it. But, no, it was the truck issue.”
“It was…making light of an extremely serious situation…somebody was
injured and…doing that would just not be accepted.” Harry said the meeting “centered” on the
posting of the accident, “it was 90% of the discussion. The other one was mentioned because we had
that; but, that’s not why we made a decision to terminate Jack.”
Sam
testified that during the meeting there was discussion about the June 9 event
and the accident, but: “The basis of the
decision to terminate was the posting of the accident at the truck store.”
June 22
Jack was
terminated. Jack said Harry told him,
“We all took a vote and nobody wants you back...and the only thing that we ask
is that you never set foot on the premises.”
Jack said he told Harry that he understood and that was the end of the
conversation. The memo put in Jack’s
personnel file, dated June 22, from Harry, states:
I told Jack
[of the June 21 meeting] . . . that it was a unanimous decision to terminate
his employment because he had made negative comments about the company in a
public forum and had made light on the internet of a very serious incident
(truck had jumped the curbing and ended up in a pond) that embarrassed the
company. I told him that we could not accept his behavior and he was not to
return to work.
Nov. 30
The unfair
labor practice charge was filed.
July 19,
2015
Bill and
Harry sent a memo to all employees stating:
Because our
employee handbook has not been updated since 2007, we have been in the process
of updating and amending it for several months.
We expect to have the finalized draft to you within the month. However in the meantime, please be aware of
the following area in which a significant change is being made. If you have issues relating to these areas
prior to the issuance of the new handbook, please see Harry.
--Courtesy
-- This policy is being rescinded effective immediately.
While there
may be some additional changes and/or additions, the foregoing lets you know,
in general terms, where a key change will be.
Again, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
July 21,
2015
At the
Administrative Law Judge’s hearing, the complaint was amended to include: Since at least August 28, 2007, the company
has maintained the Courtesy rule in its employee handbook that contains
language that makes it unlawful. The
company defended that it had already taken care of that issue by rescinding the
policy and notifying the employees.