1. The National Labor Relations Board is tasked with conducting elections to determine if employees wish to be represented by a labor union (Green, 2014).
2. Sylvia would have had the grounds to sue the hospital for wrongful termination for several reasons. Although the employees, including Sylvia, had not contacted the union, she was acting on behalf of her fellow employees. Likewise, it’s essential to note that before reaching the union, Sylvia made no threats whatsoever to call for a strike. She merely made a request, and upon realizing that nothing would be done, she contacted the union to have legal grounds to make demands (Deakin 2012). Not only that but also, she was acting on behalf of her fellow employees. She was their representative. The law would have transpired on her side.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Employment Law".
3. The hospital was incorrect in assuming that it was not obligated to bargain with the union. The federal labor relations act binds employers to be present during negotiations and to conduct themselves in an acceptable manner (Green, 2014). Omitting to do so may end in a lawsuit. The hospital should have accepted to bargain with the union and given their counter-offer rather than dismissing them outright. They should have bargained in good faith and the end, a written agreement should have been reached. Both parties have the right to present their cases to the table; employees wouldn’t be shortchanged in the workplace, especially after they unionize.
4. The union had a legal right to threaten to strike. The employers formed the union so that they could be able to bargain. It was the hospital’s legal responsibility to bargain. Refusal to do so left the employees with no other choice. They had the legal grounds to call for a strike (McCulloch, 1974). The union would have called for a strike by asking the laborers to either stage a mass walkout from the hospital or to boycott work collectively. To that end, union members would have voted, and if an agreeable percentage of the workers agreed, the strike would have commenced. The labor act deems it illegal for the hospital to fire workers on strike and hence it would have been illegal to do what the hospital threatened to do.
5. After the union won the election, the hospital had obligations to fulfill under the law. As far as bargaining goes, the hospital should portray good faith in the process. Once an accord has been agreed on, both parties should sign. Following the end of the period for the contract, the employer should bargain for a successor contract (Green, 2014). Not only does the hospital have a responsibility to participate but also facilitate any future agreements with the union. The hospital should not try to forbid anyone from joining the union if they wish to. The hospital should leave the union and its members in peace and not interfere in union business. Doing so is punishable by law.
6. Following several meetings, if an agreement is not reached, the employer can put in place the last offer that they made to the union. However, the employees can fail to agree and therefore go on a strike. It that was the case, the hospital cannot fire them and hire new employers. This is because not all avenues have been exhausted. Should the hospital do that, the employees can sue for wrongful execution. The NLRB must determine whether the offer the hospital made was a fair one (Green, 2014). If it was unfair, the NLRB could proceed to court so that the employer will be obligated to treat the laborers fairly. In the end, the union they formed will protect them from any form of unfair labor practices by the hospital.
- Deakin, S. F., & Morris, G. S. (2012). Labor law. Hart publishing.
- Green, M. Z. (2014). The NLRB as an Uberagency for the Evolving Workplace. Emory LJ, 64, 1621.
- McCulloch, F. W., & Bornstein, T. (1974). The National Labor Relations Board (Vol. 41). Praeger Publishers.
