When rumors of union activity surfaced at AutoNation’s Libertyville dealership in the Summer of 2011, the company held a series of meetings with the affected staff. An employee surreptitiously recorded the last of these meetings held on August 23, a lengthy affair conducted largely by two AutoNation executive, the firm’s corporate counsel, and it’s Regional HR Director. At about the same time, the dealership’s manager received an anonymous telephone call regarding employee Huerta, advising that he was pro-union, and also that he no longer had a driver’s license because he was charged with DUI. Huerta was listed as a driving employee, and it was required that he have a valid driver’s license, and notify the dealership of any change in status. After Huerta received two letters from the dealership’s consumer report entity, telling him that his employment would no longer be continued, he applied for unemployment benefits. A few days later, he was fired for job abandonment. Based on the facts of Huerta’s firing, the Board found that he had been fired for union activity and support. Based on what was said at the August 23 meeting, the Board found that the AutoNation representatives had violated the NLRA in several ways by interfering with their right to unionize.

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide? 

2. What statements were made by managers in their meeting with employees that violated the NLRA? Why did each of these statements violate the NLRA?

3. How are discrimination cases decided under the NLRA? What was the evidence that the suspension and ultimate termination of the employee (Huerta) were discriminatory? Is there a good argument to be made that the employer would have fired the employee anyhow, based on a lawful reason? Why or why not?

4. Should this employer have held these meetings with employees in an effort to persuade them not to unionize? Why or why not? What are some practical implications of this case for how any such meetings should be handled?