Print Сite this

The “Union Organizing Case Study”

The “Union Organizing Case Study” presents a situation where non-employees committed several attempts to agitate World Tea & Coffee employees to join The United Food and Commercial Workers Union. The incident took place in the parking lot of Westown Shopping Plaza owned by World Tea & Coffee, Inc. (World Tea & Coffee.) After World Tea & Coffee’s manager informed the non-employee union organizers about prohibiting the distribution of handbills on the employee’s parking lot, the union organizers repeated the agitation several times. These events led the union to file a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB]

We will write a
custom essay
specifically for you

for only $16.05 $11/page
308 certified writers online
Learn More

Employer/union rights and obligations stated by the NLRB speak very clearly concerning organizing a union and soliciting that may accompany this process. According to section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, the employees have the right to form a union and distribute union literature amongst coworkers during work and non-work hours (NLRB, n.d.). Section 7 also grants the employee the right to forbid non-employees from soliciting the employer-owned property, including the workspace, break rooms, and parking lots.

In the presented case study, soliciting for joining The United Food and Commercial Workers Union is accomplished on the parking lot owned by the World Tea & Coffee. It is important to note that the distribution of handbills is taking place on the employer-owned property and is completed by non-employees. According to Section 7 of NLRB, World Tea & Coffee has a right to prohibit unionizing efforts of solicitation and placing handbills of any kind on the property (NLRB, n.d.).

In the “Union Organizing Case Study”, The United Food and Commercial Workers Union filed a grievance with the NLRB concerning World Tea & Coffee’s ban to distribute handbills at the employees’ parking lot owned by the company. The NLRB rights do not forbid an employer from prohibiting the actions of non-employees to advertise for the union on the company-owned property. Therefore, the NLRB rule is in favor of the employer.

Reference

National Labor Relations Board. (n.d.). Interfering with employee rights (Section 7 & 8(a)(1)). Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 13). The “Union Organizing Case Study”. Retrieved from https://studycorgi.com/the-union-organizing-case-study/

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 13). The “Union Organizing Case Study”. https://studycorgi.com/the-union-organizing-case-study/

Work Cited

"The “Union Organizing Case Study”." StudyCorgi, 13 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/the-union-organizing-case-study/.

1. StudyCorgi. "The “Union Organizing Case Study”." January 13, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-union-organizing-case-study/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "The “Union Organizing Case Study”." January 13, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-union-organizing-case-study/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2022. "The “Union Organizing Case Study”." January 13, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/the-union-organizing-case-study/.

References

StudyCorgi. (2022) 'The “Union Organizing Case Study”'. 13 January.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal.