BHR 4350 Unit III Salts Questions

Unit III Salts Questions

Columbia Southern University

Unit III Salts Questions

Question 1. Explain how the company’s treatment of both the “covert” and “overt” salts applications for jobs compares to the recommended counter-salting steps for employers.

After discovering the “covert” salts were not qualified truck drivers, the receptionist immediately offered them positions as non-skilled laborers. They were hired and should have no issues with the company. The overt salts were also not qualified truck drivers and should have never been there in the first place. The post clearly defines what qualifications are required for the available positions. The receptionist again acted appropriately by offering the men applications and informed them that they would stay on file until a position they were qualified for became available. Simply informing them the company has no desire to be a union shop isn’t against any law. Prescreening as many applicants as possible is allowed under the NLRA and these men will be looked at and compared to others once a position opens up, but they aren’t guaranteed a job. The fact that they already had a job with the union proves they were there strictly as a hindrance to the company. This would be seen in the men’s applications under the section that requires the men to list all of their current and previous employers. They also failed to leave an application with the receptionist which leads one to believe they weren’t actually looking for employment. These “overt” salts weren’t there for a job at all.

Question 2. Would either the “covert” or the “overt” salts in this case satisfy the NLRB ruling that applicants for employment must be genuinely interested in seeking employment before claiming protection under the NLRA?

In order for someone to seek the protection of the NLRA, they must meet certain criteria. There are a few ways one could prove the applicants were genuinely job seeking. Do they fill out all paperwork that may lead to employment? Do they except any position if offered. Are they qualified for the position available? These are just a few questions a hiring official could ask themselves.

The covert salts would satisfy the ruling that the applicants were genuinely interested in seeking employment based on the fact that they applied for positions and then began working once hired. Even though they were there for the wrong reasons, they took jobs and performed work. Had they not performed at work, they could then be considered otherwise.

The overt salts would not, however, satisfy the ruling. They were offered an opportunity for employment. It was a delayed opportunity, but it was an opportunity nonetheless. Since they never brought in credentials proving they were qualified for the truck driver’s position and they near applied for the positions that may become available later, they cannot be considered genuinely interested in seeking employment.

Question 3. Does the company’s opposition to becoming a union shop indicate that there was anti-union animus in refusing to consider the “overt” salts for employment?

While there is room for argument based on the receptionist’s comment indicating that the company wasn’t interested in becoming a union shop, that’s all there is…room for argument. The company can easily defend against this accusation and can show proof that this was not an indicator that the company refused to hire union workers based solely on union affiliation. Since the covert salts took the available positions, there were no positions left for the overt salts. And since the receptionist offered the overt salts applications that would stay on file for future positions, they can’t argue otherwise. If the times had been reversed and the overt salts arrived before the coverts, the union may have had more of an argument, but they would have still fallen short based on the company’s right to hire from larger pools of employees and wait for more qualified employees. The overt salts failed to meet requirements for the only available positions and failed to apply for the positions they did qualify for. This is very clearly not proof of anti-union animus. This union is a perfect example of why corporations prefer to avoid union organization. The fact that Wal-Mart would go so far as to remove its meat cutting positions from their stores simply to avoid unionization proves this.

References

Carrell, M. R. & Heavrin, C. (2013). Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining. Private and Public Sectors. Tenth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson.

Place an Order

Plagiarism Free!

Scroll to Top