Discrimination & Disability
Source: Clarkson, Miller, Jentz and Cross; Business Law : Text and Cases/ '11 t h
ed., South-Western,
Cengage Publishing:
Emp loyment at Will
33·3. Employment at Will. Robert Adams worked as a delivery truck driver for George W. Cochran & Co. Adams persistently refused to drive a truck that lacked a re quired inspection sticker and was subsequently fired as a result of his refusal. Adams was an at-will employee, and Cochran contended that because there was no written em ployment contract stating otherwise, Cochran was entitled to discharge Adams at will-that is, for cause or no cause. Adams sought to recover $7,094 in lost wages and $200 ,000 in damages for the "humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress" that he had suffered as a result of being fired from his job, Under what legal doctrines dis cussed 'ill this chapter-or exceptions to those doctrines-might Adams be able to re cover damages from Cochran? Discuss fully. [Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 CD.C.App. 1991)J '
--~ '" I
Employee v. Independent Contractor Exercise
Donna L ee is a salesp erson employed on a full-time basis by Bob Blue, an auto dealer. She works 6 days a week, and is on duty in Bob's showroom on certain assigned days and times . She appraises trade-ins, but her appraisals are subject to the sales manager's approval. Lists of prosp ective customers belong to the dealer. She has to develop leads and report results to the sales manager. Because of her experience, she requires only minimal assistance in
.: closing and financing sales and in other phases of her work. She is paid a commission and is eligible for prizes and bonuses offered by Bob. Bob also pays the cost of health insurance and group-term life insurance for Donna.
Is Dorina an employee of Bob Blue or an independent contractor?
Employee v. Independent Contractor Exercise
Vera Elm, an electrician, submitted a job estimate to a housing comp lex for electrical work at $16 per hour for 400 hours. She is to receive $1,280 every 2 weeks for the next 10 weeks. This is not considered payment by the hour. Even if she works more or less than 400 hours to complete the work, Vera Elm will receive $6,400. Sh e also performs additional electrical installations under contracts with other companies, that she obtained through advertisements. Is Vera an independent contractor or an employee?
Source: Clarkson, Miller, Jentz and Cross; Business Law: Text and Cases, n" ed ., South-Western, Cengage Publishi ng,
Independent Contractor
31-6. Employee versus Independent Contractor. L.M.T. Steel Products, Inc., con tracted with a school to install numerous room partitions. To accomplish this work, L.M.T. hired a man named Webster. Webster was not a regular employee of L.M.T., and it Was stipulated that he was to be paid by the number of feet of partitions installed. Webster did not have a contractor's license. He hired other workers to do the ins talling, and these workers were paid by L.M.T. Webster was given blueprints by L.M.T., but he Was not otherwise at any time actively supervised by L.M.T. on the job. Needing t o place a telephone call to L.M.T., Webster drove his own personal vehicle to a public telephone. On the way, he negligently collided with another car, and an occupant of that car, Peirson , was injured. Peirson sued L.M.T. , claiming .that Webster was an employee .
L.M.T. claimed that Webster was an independent contractor. Who was correct? EXPla"" [L.M. T. Steel Products, hie. v. Peirson, 47 Md.App. 633, 425 A.2d 242 (1981)] :.:
Source : Clarkson, Miller, Jentz and Cross; Business Law: Text and Cas es,' 11 t h ed. , South-Western Cengage Publishing. )
Independent Contractor
31.-8. Employee ve~s~s' Inde -~~d~- ':~ dnver for the Happy Cab C H p .nt Contractor. Stephen Remm li ""
. o. emmerlmg p .d tai fi er mg Was " val~l~ty .of rules relating to the use of th ai b cerham lXed expenses and abided b ~l so icitation of fares, and so on. Rate e ca , t e hours that could be work d Y ~. '
~~7:eZo: :~~:;,:r 1~1a1~ ~:in,;;,~:e~:i :i~gb~ t::b~t:r~;,,~~~ri~;~a~i~nJ~;e~7thh~~J compensation benefits . Such benefit PPY Cab lr: a Nebraska state court for w l~ a~ ~at b~~is 'm i g h t the court hol~ a~~~tot Jvarlablr. to i~dependent contracto~~ ~~
_ . ,em"!'er mg v. Happy Cab C~:, . ~~?_~.~~ ._ ~_lB , 53~~~21~~1~S(1~~)Jmployee? Exp·lain."
Source: Clarkson , Miller, Jentz and Cross; Business Law: Text and Cases; i i" ed., South-Western , Cengage Publishing.
Independent Contractor
31-2. Ernp l oye e versus Independent Contractor. Clifford Aymes was hired by Jonathan Bonelli of Sun Island Sales, Inc., to create a computer program for Sun Island to use in maintaining records of its cash receipts, inventory, sales, figures, and other data. No agreement was reached as to ownership rights in the program that Aymes de veloped, called CSALIB. Aymes did most of his programming at the Sun Island office. Although Bonelli gave Aymes frequent instructions as to what he wanted from the pro gram, Aymes generally worked alone and enjoyed considerable autonomy in his work. He worked fairly regular hours, but he was not always paid by the hour-occasionally, he submitted bills (in voices) to Sun Island for his work. Aymes never received any em ployee benefits, such as health insurance, and Sun Island never withheld federal and 0 state taxes from Aymes's paycheck; nor did it pay any Social Security taxes on Aymes's earnings. Wben Bonelli unilaterally cut Aymes's hours in violation of an alleged oral
, agreement, Ayrnes left Sun Island and demanded compensation for Sun Island's use of CSALIB. Bonelli refused to pay Aymes for the program's use and also stated that he would not pay Aymes $14,560 in back wages unless Aymes signed a form releasing all rights in CSALIB. Aymes then sued Bonelli and Sun Island for copyright infringement,
: and the court had to decide who owned the copyright in the program. Central to the de- o termination of this issue was whether Aymes was an employee of Sun Island or an inde pendent contractor. What should the court decide, and why? [Ayn1.e s v. B onelli) 980 F.2d 857 (2d Cir. 1992)]
. ,.: " -~ . ~
J. I
0
l.!J\
A6 BELLEVILLE NEWS-DEMOCRAT . ' . . .., . TUESDAY, JANUARY 6,2009
~~~~~~==='INATldN &':,WORLD'I'"
~ ...~ = . .>0 Some citie~ d~tCfjimi nalMlstoryoff jobchecks .~-.
:RedWyisrnJess ,likely f~r. ~~s.¢ .~qtking. ye~s ill B?ston,' Chicago, , 'city has some. ~,OOO~e~i~>' record: " . . ? , " '. .. '. ! ,<. c . :' .- .. ': Minneapolis, )3altImore,dents on probation or pa- "There were some times
AssociatedPTeSs;w6rk'an4:r~d~c:~Jl1elikelk San. Frallcisco,'~Oakla.nd;, ~01e. , • " -, TWas temptedtog6 back to '-'._'-. . . _ , " \ .l1~odth~Y wiJl"CqF?tne~ ' Calif.,andNorWlch,Conn.;· 0'; .Ne~I;Iaven's existing ap-'.' my old way of making rnon
:~.. f; ~ - NE;WHAVEN,.Conn, - : ; c~es . . : . :" . ' -.:.:" '.... L.o~ An.geles, ~d o~er ,plkatlO': asks whether, ey," Tucker said. ~ !:' ; Hoping' to prevent convicts " '! "Thi s , miikes "'sense" in CltIesarec~n~n4ermgdomg, prospective employees have P t kn 1 I!' ' .' " - . !"", so' " been.' , t d f' roponen s ac ow't " " ' ., 'I';i": from being shut out of the ' , t enns oLredllcmg vlOlen ce.. >: ·e ." ',"., , .:";:'; . " ever eenconvicte 0 any- d that-ch . th 11 .: ' . ' . .., ' • S ' ' . " ,.- .' .. h . thin th tha , ' af-' e ge a t angmg e ap·" ' .. ,." , The amount:'of~reCldivl!;m ome'~ ci les' , suc as . goer an minor tr - . " . .l~~'J' workforce, some maJor.U.S. . ...., "' , " ..- '. ' . " '~ " , '- " " • Chi ' ' ; , " . " , . ;... fi . 1 ti . 'nil f plication IS not a panacea>0 ,'I ' . • '. . . . 'I, ' - COn1ImttiIig crimes agcWl.,. cago continue to con- c VIo a ons or Juve e 0 - . . . I
,~ cities are elimmatirtgques- .: , " . hi .'· " ' · ·l' ,.... ' ,' , ,,, :,:: . . d t . , '1 b lr...-T' ' d f but they insist it allows peo ,!, ";f: . / 1ions'froiI1th~irj~bapplica. · ~ ·;;-mt . ~,poP}l; ~~~0.n: ~~ ,\-ll,d- . " ' " , uc. ~E.~~a ac~,"~~ enses.,.. . 1 ith .. I d r
"-~; . 1 ti ", "th i:, ~ : . k: ,"'h th ': .'. matic,anditnas.taKeil:a.toll'(·"checks:.for,.'.alL P.oSltIOns. Shelton Tucker, a New p e wi c~a recor sto ~ ,Ions .,. ar ,,,,as l , W e er, :, '.. ' . ' ""'1"" _'" "J .. c-c: • • " . , ' r.ou " ' 1i 'r'o' ,. -d ' ven resid ,'.' get a foot in the door
, , .. " ' . " , '. ,... . . '>, "" c ' . .. \ •• : .'~ on l this U:01nniumty; :! ·: sai d -< , ers such.as Boston oso Haven resi entwhoserved 1'. '-. Shelton Tucker.stand~ in pr~s~ediv_~"eIIJ-P!?X~~~JFl,~e :);'Johl(DeStefanb~:in~~of.1 8f i, only:whe~ reviewfug ~ppli- .. five years in prison' for' as- . Cities-are also creating the doorway of his home ' Jev.e tl\ ~~.e.?, :..~.?,~~c..~~ d,: . ~!:: !l '-; ':. New Hav~n;'~li~ ti? tfficikJ.s t ~artts fof-schooljobs or oth- sault Withafirearm, said he standards' for. determining Dec; 11 in New Haven,' i:. .•~~;,~~1~ ::~ ! ~I?ttJ~~\~:;i~·~~il:i·r~cen.tIY · (BrOp.'osed~[~{:soG; '.'~r se~Siti~e ~~tie~;: ;~,: ' ; ;;/ :.'1, ~ has lo st \ :oui!tfess, job: PP~ . whetb~r ~, -Cp1nmat record is Conn. 'Iucker.who.was. r ' I :~{ ' ,·M~$~ '" , q,f},m~.i 'chi~~:,'~!~~,:;ca11ed ·.'"bai:i::tli·~6ox~prill-i , :~~" \:~Ih INeW. Hcl:veii.~:25 ~ ·fot>' 'portum ti es' b·e.cause ofhis ~ ';\ ' releVailt't(5thejob> '\": ':'. : ' 'I laldofffrom,Wsjobwith · " corl;ltJ#,~a~o{ihd!~~~c;k$.;'~iianc;anat~tliop.s:lli~criITii~" i ~'n;'er·'~Hs6rt~rs : ;ardve :~'a'ch- ~ ' ,....': . ,,:,t , " ..,' , ;~ , . ," :. " .. , . ' . "
,a~glass.company, says he . !'~"~~<:{~aJ(#}g.T~~~*~9:9,,~~4,~g~tOry~r(i'u~~tiB'~~fiqm~~~ :wEiekaft~f~being-'r~l~~sed.~: ' :11as lost countless job :'i:iei ..jO~::9ffhsM.1U~ ,;pi~p.9.pents Jf~~obj~ppJlqi~9~S-,i~,I~:m::7Pt\rf~.\fWitho~tt l1'el~ ~iibo ut· '1 0' of ' 1;ppotlunities because oC~ : §aYrtlie:;ti.ew~ppfba~q;~~\1:siinil~. ; ' Iri~~iu:~~'Wate/L ili~Ii:F\vill!tetJtn ' t'6~ a ,life"6f :Wsprlson 'r e c or d," : ' , : ;' , ~ : ; ;;:· he1p.: ~' ;n'gr~~'~coii~~tS~hdltbk~aaopte:&;\:iii'l;iec~p·t'L~~·~tillie":~bfficiii1 t~; ~iGii' }iT1; e : • -4 ; ,., ' I . ..1 I . · " .... 0;:-:: .::1- " ~il;·.I' · · ":'~W~ f. ~ ~·ElI.V ' .... , ~..,1..~ t .. !: ·"I...I' ..l .. · \ l ~ ~ • ~ 1 , ' , . I ~- -' .,:' · ~ "'k· ~.I. . '~'; " i:~ i ' .d ; '_ ' . ' ,',; ,:, : .1 t " , ;;, . ; '~; ""0i,,;·, ,.~, v.11~~J·~.mde?~;~ :ffIi'X; ~ ; '(ItI!:r'ilt-~ ;~· : ! ' ,~ ., ~:-,1 ~,1 ' • J ,' \ ' ;,~l~J.~, . )I;~. 1 m' , l, ~ ,~~ ~,.,~,;I, "" "__ \ ' ~· ,~lt~ : \ ':1~.9t ,: .t> ~ . r •. ' • ~ .... I.. . • • • - l't - r v t;~ li r~L'J"fP~\;1 . ~~1 nfr~~ " 1 ft ~ . . ~;~\f ~1·· t~; ~~ . t:LJ 1 ~ " ,,' ,." - , .-, '.~ . .. . \ . '" ..' .. , ' ... -' / . ' I ". .., ' J ' . , • • • ~ /or l'" "i f", .y> r r· ~ :: "" r R , r; • ," I ~ 4 ft· d "'~.~:" I .1' '' ~ ; . . ~ ':..'rrt.. ~ _," ,. . - • ~ :o.; _ ... _ • ,:•.~ . : • •
ADA Exercises
1. Jeff is a worker who operates heavy machinery . Jeff suffers from a chronic disease and has been suffering from dizzy spells caused by the medication he is taking. Jeff s employer does not have any positions available other than the operator position and lays Jeff off. Jeff files an EEOC claim. What is the issue before the EEOC?
2. Jill suffers from general "stress" because of her demanding job and personal life pressures. She asks her employer to reduce her work schedule from 8 hours per day to 6 and allow her to work on Saturday to make up the time. Her employers denies Jill's request. Is Jill protected under the ADA?
3. Melanie, who has a learning disability, applies for a job as secretarylreceptionist. The employer reviews records from a previous employer indicating that he was labeled as "mentally retarded." Even though the person's resume shows that he meets all requirements for the job, the employer does not interview him because he doesn't want to hire a person who has mental retardation. Has the employer violated the ADA?
4. Joe, ajob applicant, was hospitalized for treatment for cocaine addiction several years ago. Joe has been successfully rehabilitated and has not engaged in the illegal use of drugs since receiving treatment. Joe is qualified to perform the functions of the job. The employer rejects Joe's application. Has the employer engaged in discrimination?
Source: Clarkson, M[lIer, Jentz and Cross; Business Law: Text and Cases.Tt" ed., South-Western Cengage Publishing. '
Workers' Compensation
33-4. Workers' Cornperrsafion, Linda Burnett Kidwell, employed as a state traffic officer by the California Highway Patrol (CHP), suffered an injury at home, off duty, while practicing the standing long jump. The jump is a required component of the CHP's annual physical performance program fitness test. Kidwell filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. The CHP and the California workers' compensation appeals board denied her claim. Kidwell appealed to a state appellate court. Wbat is the re quirement for granting a workers' compensation claim? Should Kidwell's claim beI
I granted? [Kidwell v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 33 Cal.App.4th 1130, 39 ( Cal.Rptr.2d 540 (1995)]
-- .- . - . - . . - . _
Source : Clarkson, M iller, Jentz and Cross; Business Law: Text and Cases, 'l1t ~ ed. South-W Cengage Publishing. ' estern ,
Workers' Compensation
33--6. Workers' Compensation La Lounge is in a sUburban she . WS. The Touc~ of Class Omaha Neb,."rk Pa " ppmg plaza, or stnp mall in
, ,= a. tricia Bauer th La ' . does not Own the' .' ~ unges owner, common use of ~J~r~~~~t, :hl.Ch 15 pr~vided for the
i Stephanie Zoucha was a bart u~lnesses m the plaza , duties ended when she I en er at the Lounge . Her June 4 2001 at 1'15 ocked the door after closing . On locked 'the door 'fror: '~ Z~u<;ha dosed the ' ba r andi
j walked to her car in the e . inside. An hour later, she I with· [IJ ik '. parking lot ,where she was struck
I e a tire Iron on the ba k f • i sustained a s kull fracture and c 0 :n~ ~17ad: Zoucha
significant cogn itive dama C' oth:r InJunes, Includ ing thought Iorrn ti ) H ge Impairment of speech and '
a Jon er purse contai . was stolen . She ide~tified h .con arrnng her tip money, who had been in the Louner attac.ker as Wi~liam Nunez,
k ge
filed a petition in a Neb earlier that night. Zoucha ras
ers' compensation. Wh t ~tate c~urt to obtain work ing workers' compensa~io~~ Sh~~~:t~lrem~n,ts for receiv granted or denied ? Why? Zou ouc as request be Lounge, 269 Neb. 89, 690 N:.J2d 6~aC2~0~)]ch of Class
7
Non-compete exercise
Sam Snead began working for Finley Financial Services in 1999. Sam worked out the company's office in Dayton, OR. Sam performed valuation services for companies in the Dayton metropolitan area . Finley had developed a proprietary software system which Sam used to service his customers . In 2002, Finley required that each of its employees sign a covenant not to cornpete.jncluding Snead. The covenant precluded Snead from providing valuation services for companies in Ohio and Indiana for a period of 3 years after any termination of Snead's employment. Snead quit Finley in 2004 to relocate to Indianapolis where his wife, a college professor, was transferred. Snead began working for Valroy Valuation Company, a local companyproviding valuation services for companies in the Indianapolis metropolitan area. Flnley filed suit in Ohio seeking ail injunction precluding Snead from working for Valroy and seeking money damages. Ohio is a blue pencil state.
Should Ohio enforce the non-compete covenant? Why or why not? Discuss the issues raised by the facts.
() .."
. . th
Source: Clarkson, Miller, Jentz and Cross; Business Law: Text and Cases, 11 . ed., South-Western,
Cengage Publishing:
Wage and Hour Laws
, 33-1. Calzoni Boating Co. is an interstate
business engaged in manufacturing and "f'. l'l..~; ''f~ selling boats. The com~any has five hundred W,t nnnumon employees. Representatives of these employ ~¥ ees are requesting a four-day, ten-hours-per-day work \¥: week, a~d Ca1zoni is concern~d that this would require &., paymg time and a half after eight hours per day.Which ~. ' federal act is Calzoni thinking of that might require this? [ Will the act in fact require paying time and a half for all
..'.' hours worked over eight hours per day .if the employees' ""'i proposal is accepted? Explain. . ~..... j.. "
. th Source: Clarkson, Miller, Jentz and Cross; Business Law: Text and Cases, 11 ed., South-Western,
Cengage Publishing.
Wage and Hour Laws
33-8. Hours and Wages. Richard Ackerman was an advance sales representative and account manager for Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. His primary responsibility was to sell Coca-Cola products to grocery stores, convenience stores, and other sales outlets. Coca-Cola also employed merchandisers, who did not sell Coca-Cola products but performed tasks associated with their distribution and promotion, including restocking shelves, filling vending machines, and setting up displays. The account managers, who serviced the smaller accounts themselves, regularly worked between fifty-five and seventy-two hours each week. Coca-Cola paid them a salary, bonuses, and commissions, but it did not pay them-as they did merchandisers-additional compensation for the overtime. Ackerman and the other account managers filed a suit in a federal district court against Coca-Cola, alleging that they were entitled to overtime compensation, Coca-Cola responded that because of an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act, it was not required to .p ay them overtime . Is Coca-Cola correct? Explain. (Ackerman v: Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., 179 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 1999)]
Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining Cases
Henry R. Cheesman, Business Law, s" ed. / Pearson/Prentice Hall.
42.1. I n July 1965, the Team st ers Union (Teamsters) began a cam p aign to organiz e the empl oyee s at a Sinclair C om pany (S inclair) pla nt . When the
president of Sinclair learned of the Teamsters' drive , he talked with all of his emp loyees and emph asized the results of a long 1952 stri ke th at he claim ed "alm ost put our company out of business" and expressed worry that the employees we~e fo~ getti ng the "les so ns of the past." He emphasized that Smclall was on "thin ice" financially, that the Teamster s' "only w eapo n is to str ike," and that a strike "could lead t o th e closi ng of th e
42.2. M obile Oil Corp oration (Mobile) has its headquar ters in Bea um ont , Texas. It operat es a fleet of eight oceango
, ing tankers that transport its petroleum products from Tex as to p orts o n th e East Coast. A typ ical trip on a tanker from Beaumont to New York takes about five days . No more than 10 to 20 percent of the seamen's work time is spent in T exas. T h e 300 or so seamen who ar e em ployed to work on the t an kers b elong t o the O il , Chemi cal & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL -CIO (Uni on ) , which h as an agency sh op agreement with Mobile. The state of Texas enacts a right-to-work law. M obile sues Union, claiming that th e agency sh op agreeme nt is unenforceable because it vio lates the Texas right - to -work 1a~. Who wi ns ? [Oil, Chemical & Ato mic WorkersInternat ional Union,AFL-CIO v. Mobile Oil Corp., 426 U. S. 4D7, 96 S.Ct. 2 140 (976)1
33-5. CollectiveBargaining. Verizon NewYork, Inc. (VNY), provid es tele c ommun ications services . VNY and the Commun ications Workers o f America (CWA) are part ies to collective b argaining agreem ents covering installation and maintenance employees. At one time, VNY sup ported annual blood drives . VNY, CWA, and charitable organizations jointly set dates , arranged appoi ntme nts, and adjusted work sch edu les for the drives. For eac h drive, ab out a thousand em p loyees, includ ing man agers, spent up to -four hours traveling to a don or site, giving blood, recovering, and returnin g to their jobs . Employees received full p ay for the time . In 2001 ,VNY told CWA that it would no longer a llow emp loyees to parti cipate "on Co m pa ny time: claimi ng that it experienced problems meeting custo mer requests for se rvice durin g the dr ives. CWA file d a co mpla int with the National Labor Relatio ns Board (NLRB), asking that VNY be ordere d to bargain over the decis ion. Did VNY commit an unfair labor prac tice? Shoul d th e NLRB grant CWP:s request? 'Why or why not ? [ Venzon New York, In c. v. National Labor Relations Board, 360 F.3d 206 (D.C.Cir. 2004)]
pl an t " b ec aus e Sinclair had manufacturing facili t ies else where. He also noted that bec ause of the employees' ages and the limited usefulness of their skills, they might not be able t o fin d reem plo ym ent if the y lost their ~obs. Finally, he se~t lit.er
. ature to the employees stati ng that the Teamsters Uruon IS a str ike happy outfit" and th at they were under "ho odl~m co n trol " and included a cartoon sh ow in g the preparatIOn of a gra;e for Sinclair and other headstones containing the names of other plants allegedly victimized by unions.. The Team st ~rs lost the election 7 to 6 and th en filed an unfair labor pracnce ch arg e with the NLRB. D id Sinclair viola t e labor law?
[N.L.R.B . v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U. S. 57 5, 89 S.Ct . 1918
(1969)J
33-3. Supp ose that Co nso lidated Stores is undergoin g a unioni zation campai gn. Prior to the union elec tion, man agem ent states that the union is unnecessary to protect workers . Management also provides bo nuses and wage 'incre ases to the workers during this period.The empl oy ees reject the union . Union o rga nizers protest that the wage incr eases during the election campaign unfairly prejudiced the vote. Should these wage increases be regarded as an unfair lab or practice? Discuss.
33-4. Unfair Labor Practice. The New York Department of Education's e-ma il policy proh ibits the us e of the e-mail system for un official purposes, exc ept that officials of the New York Public Employees Federation (pEF), the union representing state empl oyees, can use the system for some limited communications, including the sched uling of union meeti ngs and ac tivities. In 1998, Michael Darcy, an ele cted PEF official, began sending mass, union related e-rnails to empl oyees, including a summary of a union delegates' conventi on; a union newslett er, a- criti cism of proposed state legislation, and a criticism of the state govern or and the Governor's Office of Employee Relatio ns. Richard Cate, the department's chief operating offic er, met with Darcy and reite rated the department's e-mail po licy. 'Wh en Darcy refused to sto p his use of the e-mail system,Cate termin ated his access to it.Darcy filed a com plaint with the New York Public Employment Relations Board ,alleging a n un fair labor prac tice. Do the circu msta nc es su pport Care's action? Why or why not?
[Ben son v. Cueva s, 293 A.D.2d 927,74 1 N.YS .2d 310 (3 Dept. 2002)]
Henry R. Cheesma n, Business Law , s" ed. I Pearson/P rent ice Hall.
375 U.S. 405, 84 S.Ct. 457 {1964l Supreme Court of the llnitedStates
. ' ,: '
' 'Bac kgrou nd and F~cts :., ;:'.. ..:; , " .' 'empl;yi!6 )~d (isundertaken w ith the exp ress p urpose of . , ' Exchange Parts C~. (Exchange p a~.ts) is erigag~d ·i~ . the , . imp/hgi~t~p~:n 'iheirfeed~mofchoice fo r or againstu~ ion-
~':;i~;~~;~1.rt;~.i;~~~~.~~~gi~~:~~:if~~@~i~;¥~t¥~if~~:: : :: ~;~i~?i!~ft:~B;l~$f{~&~1Y!:~;~:!s ·. ·~~!:@fs~~.·s~i~: · . .-' ,: represent'ed :by ,a' u ruoR. 0!! Nover1lb~r' 9 ; . i ~ ,$ ~;"clieJ~~er':F ·,g~siio~4a '!/is'! Inii d~ a velvet glove.."E mploy ees 'are not likt;ly ' t .nab.h~a:J. illT'oilie~hob'd · ·b(B'oife;;.ri:aker~; Iio~';Siiip'buiid~fs~ : ; :16"'i;ii~s ihe .i7ifir;n'c~ ':th'~i the's ourc~ ojbenijits'no-rd conferred is
. _ .. , - . . . _ . , ' .._ • • ,. , ' . • ' Ii' -. .. - ~ n- 0 ~f " • - •• ~ 'L. ~ . ' " . .... " - ~ .., , I .--.: l , -' ." ~ ": ~ ' ..,.. • • . ' L, -. - .
: }B la.ck sniit h s; ·;Forg e~.s 'anq'H elp eis' ,:,A:;FV CTO { Onio.q).,.:':a,is!!.t heJOu i-c~;Pom:71;hic~fi.!!uie}.en/jjts··m.u;tJlow :ana whlc~ . • , .~;"': .. ~ : _ .. : _ " ~.,.. _ I . . _ - ~ . ~l ' '''' ~ ~ · · ' ' ' '' ' : ~ ~ - ' '': ' - ' . _..;r- J'J .. .. . ..:., . ' ';;", \, - ' .' ~i J.l ~· ," ,.......'..;:'\ ~ . "._: ;. ..... -. ~' . "'- ' . ' ,( ' , ,:,- .., ..! , '" • ' . . / . " ~.~: :~~v.lse,q,Exch a~g ~ fart~ ythat ~t},v~s ,gQ~l1g :.t9 .q~ndp c.ra ' . .. ;r..ay.d!y .up.:if;-!t ; IS'7! C?t~ob7zgeif · : :. :,:' ,: ,:\' .' '. ' ', ,.:'., -, '. ",;
1~lli!l~ii'lilll(f~i!lr" j'~1~ill~!~i': : ;:;+-aar91: 1l 8 , > 196q.; as, ilie ,d~~ tr~m :,da~e ; ;'Q J!.. ,Feqr:u~1J'-.-~0( i ·jI O;'!'Y!o1p:xa.lc utat~dgo,o.ij'UJ!!!. :dfi~h!.~ :s[) rt, a~pr:zvef,·e.rnployee.s. Oj,::.
I .,: . \ ' " , ,~. . ' .• ,
-.; " ~ ,. ~;.~;. ", '. '," ", '.~ "-j'i .
. ,~~()rCl.ered 'a · rievv deCtJ.on: i The ·qjlirt ' of:appe:ils Tevt:rsea~ .The~. iCas'~' Qi{" 'ti 0
' ~ S·! .....~.N.· . :,, .'.:.·1:·.'.:~~p} ~¥,~a .,:.. . .,:S : ,, :,: :.' .< . ' ,. ,' ' .. : .z:'2 "..•.,,-_ c:..,:::...,... ..:c.:." :.. ··RB ... . ; . ...'t.· o··'t.b," ··.e' D' -. : S hp' ~e fri~ :Ci)'iJi{:j' ~~~ ·.., ..e.S ..::.:; "'- ...,-,--:'--:---'-,-..::..-,--'----''-:-..::..-,-..::..-,---..::..-,-~
' Criti~liL~galThiclang Should a company beprohibitel SUpreme Cou rf lssue . from taking aW~y ( orgiving) econ omic benefits in its fight IS it an ~ rifaii practice for an employer to' confer neweco- withauuiori? . nomic be nefits on i t s employees on the eve of a union
B u siness E thics Was it ethical for the employer in thi s election?
case to increase employee benefits on the eve of the uni on electi on?
tn t he La:nga uge of t he U.S . Sup; Q'e m e Court Harlan']ustiee The broadpurpose ofSection 8(a) is to estab C ontemp orary Bus in ess Do you think the emp loyer 's lish the right of employees to organize for mutual aid w ithout conduct in this case co nstituted a "fist in a velvet glove"? employer interference. JiVe have no doubt that it p1'ohibits not Were the be nefits conferred in thi s case likely to be only intrusrue threats but also conduct tmmediate lv favo raole to ephemeral'
"...... e