Describe the elements of the labor relations process and the relevance of each to effective labor-management relations.

The text outlines three basic assumptions underlying the labor relations process in the United States. To what extent do you agree or disagree with these assumptions? Does your response differ depending on whether you think about the question from the perspective of an employer or an employee?

Read “Discharge for Whistleblower Activity” on pages 38-39 and answer the following question:

Should the federal appeals court deny Broom and Miller’s appeal and enforce the decision of the state district court upholding the discharge of the two whistleblowers? Explain your reasoning.

Final chapter related question:

Discuss some employer tactics used to prevent or minimize union membership growth prior to the passage of the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act in 1935. Which, if any, of these tactics would be lawful today? What anti-union tactics are used today?

Transcribed Image Text:12:05 AM Mon Feb 5 ||| = B ●●●● CHAPTER 1 Upon learning of the complaint from the medica- tion consultant, supervisor Dutton discharged Broom and Miller for "not following the proper chain of com- mand in raising an issue about another employee." Both Broom and Miller are nonunion employees unrepresented by a union. After being discharged, Broom and Miller's only recourse was to file a wrongful discharge state court claim, arguing that they were engaged in internal whistle blowing activity and thus protected from discharge as a matter of Oklahoma public policy. The employer argued that Broom and Miller were subject to the Oklahoma common law employment- at-will (EAW) doctrine, which permits an employer to discharge an at-will employee at any time for any or no stated reason. The employer sought and received a summary judgment in state district court declaring Broom and Miller's discharge to be lawful under the state's common law, EAW doctrine. Broom and Miller appealed the state district court's decision to a federal Court of Appeals, seeking to reverse the district court's decision. In Groce v. Foster, 880 P.2d902 (Okla. 1994), the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized five types of public policy exceptions to the common law, EAW doctrine. Under Oklahoma law, an at-will employee may not be lawfully discharged for (1) refusing to par- ticipate in an illegal activity; (2) performing an impor- tant public service (e.g., jury duty); (3) exercising a legal right or interest of the employee; (4) exposing some wrongdoing by his or her employer; and (5) perform- ing an act that public policy would encourage or refus- ing to perform an act that public policy would discourage, when the discharge action is coupled with a showing of bad faith, malice, or retaliation. Broom and Miller argued that their discharge fell under the fifth public policy exception to the EAW doctrine. By reporting to management a co-worker who they honestly believed was engaged in stealing drugs intended for administration to residents of the facility, Broom and Miller believed they were engaging in conduct that Oklahoma public policy encourages. The Oklahoma Supreme Court mandates that to be recognized and enforced, public policy exceptions must be clearly stated in state constitutional, regula- tory, or case decision law. To that end, Broom and Miller cited three statutory laws that they believed pro- vided a clear statement of public policy supporting their action. ● Union-Management Relationships in Perspective 39 2 AA The first law is the Nursing Home Care Act, which governs safeguards and procedures for the storage, safekeeping, monitoring, dispensing, and, when neces- sary, destruction of patient prescription drugs. The employer argued that the act specifically applies only to licensed nursing homes operating within the state. The employer's facility is licensed as a residential care facility and thus is excluded from coverage under the Nursing Home Care Act. The state of Oklahoma grants operating licenses for several different types of elder- care facilities, including nursing homes, assisted living homes, and residential care facilities. The second law is the Residential Care Act, which the employer admitted does apply to the facility in this case. Broom and Miller noted that the law authorizes the Oklahoma State Department of Health to "develop and enforce rules and regulations to implement the provisions of the Residential Care Act. Such rules and regulations shall include but not be limited to govern- ing temperature limits, lighting, ventilation, and other physical conditions which shall protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the home.” The employer argued that Broom and Miller did not raise the issue of the Residential Care Act's applicability to their case when the case was before the district court and therefore could not legally raise it as a supporting argument on appeal. It is a well-settled legal principle that issues or arguments not clearly presented and con- sidered at a prior legal proceeding cannot be subse- quently raised as a legal basis for argument on appeal. The employer also noted that the language referred to by Broom and Miller in the Residential Care Act is very general and not specific enough to rise to the level of a clear statement of public policy supporting intent to make an exception to the prevailing Oklahoma EAW doctrine. ... The third law cited by Broom and Miller as a basis for their appeal is the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act. Although this law does make it a crim- inal offense to steal a controlled dangerous substance, Broom and Miller made no specific argument as to how this law established a clear mandate of public pol- icy applicable to their discharge case. The employer argued that Broom and Miller again failed to meet the required showing of a clear and compelling public policy in favor of restricting an employer's right to dis- charge an at-will employee for failing to follow the established procedure for bringing a serious complaint against a co-worker. Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202 39/774 > : ●●●
Transcribed Image Text:12:05 AM Mon Feb 5 = ||| CASE STUDY 1-2 B 38 PART 1 ● Polizzi and other company officials denied the charges. They said that from the first day that he showed up at the job site Potts had been a trouble- maker. When he was hired, he had an erroneous impression as to what the pay for the work was worth. He was quite vocal about what he saw as low pay and other subjects, such as how the work should be done. “I had to put up with his mouth, always com- plaining and whining,” Polizzi said. However, he over- looked it because, "he was a good caulker and he was productive." His outstanding productivity and excellent work resulted in several pay raises in the ensuing weeks. Still, his constant complaining bred dissatisfac- tion and caused one co-worker to quit. ARC had an informal (unwritten) policy that people not tell others their pay rate; such complaining leads to workers com- paring themselves to each other, breeding dissatisfac- tion. Potts went against that policy, even after he had been asked politely to “keep your pay rate to yourself.” Ms. Boxrud testified that she wrote this on Potts's pay stub because he "was causing issues on the job site telling people that, walk off and they will give you a raise. I wanted to keep an atmosphere of calm on the job. We already had one employee quit over it. Talking about pay was causing problems, so I wanted him to stop talking about it." Managers also denied that their actions violated labor law. The workers had not formed a union, nor were they contemplating forming a union. The word "union" was never mentioned to ARC managers. Fur- ther, workers were not bargaining collectively and they were not threatening to strike if wages stayed unchanged. Clearly, they were not joining together for ●●●● Recognizing Rights and Responsibilities of Unions and Management "mutual aid and protection" against an exploitive employer, given that they were all earning over $30 per hour. Thus, management at ARC was not interfer- ing with their rights under labor law. Finally, ARC did not retaliate against Potts for his complaints. He was laid off near the end of the job, along with several other workers. He would have been laid off regardless of his statements to his co-workers: When a job neared completion, fewer workers were needed. Yes, it was true that Potts offered to work at another job site. However, what Polizzi did not know at the time that he mentioned that project was whether ARC would win the contract. It turned out that the firm did not have the low bid and the contract was awarded to another firm. The firm won other bids, but the work was not as difficult; thus, the company did not need to hire a caulker who commanded the high rate of pay that Mr. Potts earned. Consequently, ARC did not need his services. Potts's charges of retaliation are baseless. * All company and individual names and some minor facts are changed. This case is adapted from an NLRB case. = a 2 AA Questions 1. Given the facts of the case and the brief description of the LMRA, did ARC violate labor law by telling Mr. Potts to "Please keep your pay rate to yourself"? Explain your reasoning. 2. Did ARC retaliate against Mr. Potts when it laid him off and did not offer him work on other jobs? Did these actions constitute violations of the LMRA? Explain your reasoning. Discharge for Whistleblower Activity Janet Broom and Darla Miller were employed as a cer- tified medication aide and cook, respectively, at the employer's residential care facility located in Norman, Oklahoma. Both employees suspected another employee of stealing and using drugs, intended for use by residents of the facility, from the facility's medi- cation room. Broom and Miller decided to report the suspected employee based on their observation that she had falsified medical drug log books to conceal her theft from facility managers. The facility's Employee Handbook clearly outlined a procedure employees were to follow when making com- plaints involving other employees. The Employee Hand- book called for the initial complaint to be filed with the accused employee's immediate supervisor. Because the two employees making the complaint believed that the immediate supervisor in this case, Sarah Dutton, was a close personal friend of the accused, Broom and Miller chose to make their complaint to another manager, who was the medication consultant at the facility. Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202 38/774 > : ●●●

Question

Describe the elements of the labor relations process and the relevance of each to effective labor-management relations.
The text outlines three basic assumptions underlying the labor relations process in the United States. To what extent do you agree or disagree with these assumptions? Does your response differ depending on whether you think about the question from the perspective of an employer or an employee?

Read “Discharge for Whistleblower Activity” on pages 38-39 and answer the following question:

Should the federal appeals court deny Broom and Miller’s appeal and enforce the decision of the state district court upholding the discharge of the two whistleblowers? Explain your reasoning.

Final chapter related question:

Discuss some employer tactics used to prevent or minimize union membership growth prior to the passage of the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act in 1935. Which, if any, of these tactics would be lawful today? What anti-union tactics are used today?

12:05 AM Mon Feb 5
|||
=
B
●●●●
CHAPTER 1
Upon learning of the complaint from the medica-
tion consultant, supervisor Dutton discharged Broom
and Miller for "not following the proper chain of com-
mand in raising an issue about another employee."
Both Broom and Miller are nonunion employees
unrepresented by a union. After being discharged,
Broom and Miller's only recourse was to file a wrongful
discharge state court claim, arguing that they were
engaged in internal whistle blowing activity and thus
protected from discharge as a matter of Oklahoma
public policy.
The employer argued that Broom and Miller were
subject to the Oklahoma common law employment-
at-will (EAW) doctrine, which permits an employer
to discharge an at-will employee at any time for any
or no stated reason. The employer sought and received
a summary judgment in state district court declaring
Broom and Miller's discharge to be lawful under the
state's common law, EAW doctrine.
Broom and Miller appealed the state district
court's decision to a federal Court of Appeals, seeking
to reverse the district court's decision.
In Groce v. Foster, 880 P.2d902 (Okla. 1994), the
Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized five types of
public policy exceptions to the common law, EAW
doctrine. Under Oklahoma law, an at-will employee
may not be lawfully discharged for (1) refusing to par-
ticipate in an illegal activity; (2) performing an impor-
tant public service (e.g., jury duty); (3) exercising a legal
right or interest of the employee; (4) exposing some
wrongdoing by his or her employer; and (5) perform-
ing an act that public policy would encourage or refus-
ing to perform an act that public policy would
discourage, when the discharge action is coupled with
a showing of bad faith, malice, or retaliation.
Broom and Miller argued that their discharge fell
under the fifth public policy exception to the EAW
doctrine. By reporting to management a co-worker
who they honestly believed was engaged in stealing
drugs intended for administration to residents of the
facility, Broom and Miller believed they were engaging
in conduct that Oklahoma public policy encourages.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court mandates that to
be recognized and enforced, public policy exceptions
must be clearly stated in state constitutional, regula-
tory, or case decision law. To that end, Broom and
Miller cited three statutory laws that they believed pro-
vided a clear statement of public policy supporting
their action.
●
Union-Management Relationships in Perspective 39
2 AA
The first law is the Nursing Home Care Act, which
governs safeguards and procedures for the storage,
safekeeping, monitoring, dispensing, and, when neces-
sary, destruction of patient prescription drugs. The
employer argued that the act specifically applies only
to licensed nursing homes operating within the state.
The employer's facility is licensed as a residential care
facility and thus is excluded from coverage under the
Nursing Home Care Act. The state of Oklahoma grants
operating licenses for several different types of elder-
care facilities, including nursing homes, assisted living
homes, and residential care facilities.
The second law is the Residential Care Act, which
the employer admitted does apply to the facility in this
case. Broom and Miller noted that the law authorizes
the Oklahoma State Department of Health to "develop
and enforce rules and regulations to implement the
provisions of the Residential Care Act. Such rules and
regulations shall include but not be limited to govern-
ing temperature limits, lighting, ventilation, and other
physical conditions which shall protect the health,
safety, and welfare of the residents in the home.” The
employer argued that Broom and Miller did not raise
the issue of the Residential Care Act's applicability to
their case when the case was before the district court
and therefore could not legally raise it as a supporting
argument on appeal. It is a well-settled legal principle
that issues or arguments not clearly presented and con-
sidered at a prior legal proceeding cannot be subse-
quently raised as a legal basis for argument on appeal.
The employer also noted that the language referred to
by Broom and Miller in the Residential Care Act is very
general and not specific enough to rise to the level of a
clear statement of public policy supporting intent to
make an exception to the prevailing Oklahoma EAW
doctrine.
...
The third law cited by Broom and Miller as a basis
for their appeal is the Uniform Controlled Dangerous
Substances Act. Although this law does make it a crim-
inal offense to steal a controlled dangerous substance,
Broom and Miller made no specific argument as to
how this law established a clear mandate of public pol-
icy applicable to their discharge case. The employer
argued that Broom and Miller again failed to meet
the required showing of a clear and compelling public
policy in favor of restricting an employer's right to dis-
charge an at-will employee for failing to follow the
established procedure for bringing a serious complaint
against a co-worker.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
39/774
>
:
●●●

12:05 AM Mon Feb 5
=
|||
CASE STUDY
1-2
B
38
PART 1
●
Polizzi and other company officials denied the
charges. They said that from the first day that he
showed up at the job site Potts had been a trouble-
maker. When he was hired, he had an erroneous
impression as to what the pay for the work was
worth. He was quite vocal about what he saw as low
pay and other subjects, such as how the work should
be done. “I had to put up with his mouth, always com-
plaining and whining,” Polizzi said. However, he over-
looked it because, "he was a good caulker and he was
productive." His outstanding productivity and excellent
work resulted in several pay raises in the ensuing
weeks. Still, his constant complaining bred dissatisfac-
tion and caused one co-worker to quit. ARC had an
informal (unwritten) policy that people not tell others
their pay rate; such complaining leads to workers com-
paring themselves to each other, breeding dissatisfac-
tion. Potts went against that policy, even after he had
been asked politely to “keep your pay rate to yourself.”
Ms. Boxrud testified that she wrote this on Potts's
pay stub because he "was causing issues on the job site
telling people that, walk off and they will give you a
raise. I wanted to keep an atmosphere of calm on the
job. We already had one employee quit over it. Talking
about pay was causing problems, so I wanted him to
stop talking about it."
Managers also denied that their actions violated
labor law. The workers had not formed a union, nor
were they contemplating forming a union. The word
"union" was never mentioned to ARC managers. Fur-
ther, workers were not bargaining collectively and they
were not threatening to strike if wages stayed
unchanged. Clearly, they were not joining together for
●●●●
Recognizing Rights and Responsibilities of Unions and Management
"mutual aid and protection" against an exploitive
employer, given that they were all earning over $30
per hour. Thus, management at ARC was not interfer-
ing with their rights under labor law.
Finally, ARC did not retaliate against Potts for his
complaints. He was laid off near the end of the job,
along with several other workers. He would have been
laid off regardless of his statements to his co-workers:
When a job neared completion, fewer workers were
needed. Yes, it was true that Potts offered to work at
another job site. However, what Polizzi did not know
at the time that he mentioned that project was whether
ARC would win the contract. It turned out that the firm
did not have the low bid and the contract was awarded
to another firm. The firm won other bids, but the work
was not as difficult; thus, the company did not need to
hire a caulker who commanded the high rate of pay that
Mr. Potts earned. Consequently, ARC did not need his
services. Potts's charges of retaliation are baseless.
*
All company and individual names and some
minor facts are changed. This case is adapted from an
NLRB case.
=
a
2 AA
Questions
1. Given the facts of the case and the brief description
of the LMRA, did ARC violate labor law by telling
Mr. Potts to "Please keep your pay rate to yourself"?
Explain your reasoning.
2. Did ARC retaliate against Mr. Potts when it laid him
off and did not offer him work on other jobs? Did
these actions constitute violations of the LMRA?
Explain your reasoning.
Discharge for Whistleblower Activity
Janet Broom and Darla Miller were employed as a cer-
tified medication aide and cook, respectively, at the
employer's residential care facility located in Norman,
Oklahoma. Both employees suspected another
employee of stealing and using drugs, intended for
use by residents of the facility, from the facility's medi-
cation room. Broom and Miller decided to report the
suspected employee based on their observation that she
had falsified medical drug log books to conceal her
theft from facility managers.
The facility's Employee Handbook clearly outlined a
procedure employees were to follow when making com-
plaints involving other employees. The Employee Hand-
book called for the initial complaint to be filed with the
accused employee's immediate supervisor. Because
the two employees making the complaint believed that
the immediate supervisor in this case, Sarah Dutton, was
a close personal friend of the accused, Broom and Miller
chose to make their complaint to another manager, who
was the medication consultant at the facility.
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202
38/774
>
:
●●●

Accepted Answer

Corporate law, is a branch of legal practice that governs the creation, organization, operation, and…