Question

Teamsters Union (Teamsters) began a campaign to organize the employees at a Sinclair Company (Sinclair) plant. When the president of Sinclair learned of the Teamsters’ drive, he talked with all of his employees and emphasized the results of a long strike 13 years earlier that he claimed “almost put our company out of business,” and he expressed worry that the employees were forgetting the “lessons of the past.” He emphasized that Sinclair was on “thin ice” financially, that the Teamsters’ “only weapon is to strike,” and that a strike “ could lead to the closing of the plant” because Sinclair had manufacturing facilities elsewhere. He also noted that because of the employees’ ages and the limited usefulness of their skills, they might not be able to find reemployment if they lost their jobs. Finally, he sent literature to the employees stating that “the Teamsters Union is a strike happy outfit” and that they were under “hoodlum control,” and included a cartoon showing the preparation of a grave for Sinclair and other headstones containing the names of other plants allegedly victimized by unions. The Teamsters lost the election seven to six and then filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. Has Sinclair violated labor law? Who wins? N. L. R. B. v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U. S. 575, 89 S. Ct. 1918,1969 U. S. Lexis 3172 (Supreme Court of the United States)


$1.99
Sales1
Views59
Comments0
  • CreatedAugust 12, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000