Collective bargaining is the process aiming to solve workplace issues and gain influence to address concerns regarding terms of employment, such as pay, hours, leave, benefits, safety policies, and other essential aspects. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) refers to a labor contract signed by an employer and a union that represents employees (Cihon & Castagnera, 2017). The purpose of this paper is to explore the unfair labor practice charge filed against Delphi Golf, Inc. and explain the process and steps that the company will take to defend its action.
In the given scenario, the first step that the employer will have to take to defend the action is to deny the validity of claims and accusations of employee rights infringement and discrimination. Furthermore, Delphi Golf Inc. should request a burden of proof from the plaintiffs showing that its action was discrimination motivated by encouraging union membership rather than employment discharge resulting from the qualifications of the applicants. Next, the company should seek to establish the genuine interest of the applicants in being employed by Delphi Golf Inc. If evidence of actual interest cannot be provided, the company acted under the law in its refusal to hire the prospective employees (Cihon & Castagnera, 2017). In this case, the union employees do not have valid claims.
Delphi Golf Inc. recognized the union’s ability to represent its employees on the basis of voluntary recognition. The company suggested that the claims of the majority of employees were valid and avoided holding a secret ballot or certification election (Cihon & Castagnera, 2017). Delphi Golf Inc. should have agreed upon a reasonable time before signing a collective bargaining agreement with the union instead of rushing into it. Furthermore, the company found itself in a vulnerable position by requiring all employees to join the union or maintain their membership since such actions can be interpreted as coercive and aiming to encourage unionization. Alternatively, Delphi Golf Inc. could have required union dues instead of full-fledged membership in the contract of employment, ensuring the lawfulness of its further action.
The union should not have been deceitful in disclosing the employees’ support as part of the collective bargaining agreement negotiations. Instead, it should have explained the advantages of unionization to existing and new employees and left the decision to join up to them (Cihon & Castagnera, 2017). Moreover, the union should not have recommended hiring employees on the basis of their membership or lack of such. Alternatively, it could have required union dues from employees instead of union membership in the union security clause.
Based on the given scenario and the discussions above, Delphi Golf Inc. is liable for discriminatory actions. They are considered unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (Cihon & Castagnera, 2017). In turn, the union is not liable as it merely recommended not to hire prospective employees. It is the company that made the decision not to extend the employment based on the applicants’ lack of union membership.
To summarize, in the given scenario, Delphi Golf Inc. was unlawful in its intention not to extend employment on the basis of union membership. Steps to defend such action include denying the validity of claims and accusations of employee rights infringement, requiring the burden of proof regarding discrimination, and establishing the applicants’ interest in being employed by the company. An alternative scenario would be requiring union dues as part of the employment contract instead of making union membership obligatory.
Reference
Cihon, P. J., & Castagnera, J. O. (2017). Employment and labor law (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.