HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Student Name School Name Human Resource Management From the claims made by both the union and the company l believe that the union had a stronger case than the company since some of the claims they had against the company were in line with the LMRA act under the section of unfair labor practices section 8(a). They claimed the following had been done: The company repeatedly interrogated the employees concerning their union activities; this is evidenced in the case when the company’s maintenance supervisor talked to some o the employees asking them about the union’s visit. He telephoned George Thompson, talked to Alice Coleman; he interrogated Theo Ewing and also Gloria Greer. While doing this he violated the National Labor Relations Act Section 8(a) (1). Which states it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by section 7” (Fortado, n.d) The supervisor also threatened Mr. Theo Ewing that he had everything because he had given him and that he had the last chance to tell him what was happening with the union. The threatening of employees is also evidenced when the new supervisor Leo Nord told Cecil Snow on the day o the elections that if the union won then the employer would take away the free rent apartments from the janitor’s help and charge the head janitor “for the second bedroom in their apartments.” (Ivancevich, 2010, p.21). The employers also promised the employees that it was going to improve their sickness and health benefit program including a new benefit to cover maternity expenses for employees and their spouses. Even though the company claimed that it was part of their annual review which comes during the Christmas season, it still sounds like a payoff to the employees so that they would not sign with the union. Since if they wanted to improve their employees’ health cover they should not have waited until the union offered to represent the employees for them say that they are reviewing it. The company tried on their part to say that it had not violated any right since it did not know what their former supervisor Larry Melton was doing. This is lie since it is very unlikely that the owner of the company did not know what their own supervisor did yet he was the one in charge of the company on their behalf. It is a fac...