1 / 5

Case Analysis

Case Analysis. FACTS – Identify the essential facts that give rise to the dispute. Caveat : assuming facts not stated ISSUE(s) – The question to be decided. May be broad or narrow. RULE [ of Law ] – The applicable LMRA or negotiated contract language

garrison-pearson
Download Presentation

Case Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Case Analysis FACTS – Identify the essential facts that give rise to the dispute. Caveat: assuming facts not stated ISSUE(s) – The question to be decided. May be broad or narrow. RULE [of Law] – The applicable LMRA or negotiated contract language APPLICATION – Apply the appropriate rule(s) or law or contract language to the specific facts of the case. CONCLUSION – Opinion of outcome (determination of issue(s)) based on application of law to facts. State with reason your agreement or disagreement with the judge/board/arbitrator’s ruling. MANAGEMENT – What management lessons can be learned from this case? What managerial practices could be implemented to prevent similar cases from occurring?

  2. Case #1Improper Interference with Union’s Freedom of Speech FACTS • Employer operated the retail mall • Union business agents were distributing handbills in the mall • Security asked union agents to cease activities and to vacate the premisies • Union business agents were arrested for tresspass • Solicitation by charitable, civic, and other reasons had been permitted in the mall

  3. Case #1Improper Interference with Union’s Freedom of Speech Issue • Was this an act of discrimination? Rule of Law • LMRA Section 8(a)(1)

  4. Case #1Improper Interference with Union’s Freedom of Speech Application • The mall management interfered with the union agents rights to collectively engage in union business for mutual aid and protection. Conclusion • The NLRB ruled in favor of the union.

  5. Case #1Improper Interference with Union’s Freedom of Speech Managerial Implications • Know the law. • Treat union’s no different from other solicitor’s if you own a mall.

More Related