From book The Labor Relations Process $11$th edition$-$Holley, Ross, Wolters Case Study $1-11)$ Given the facts of the case and the brief description of the LMRA, did ARC violate labor law by telling Mr$.$ Potts to "Please keep your pay rate to yourself"? Explain your reasoning $2)$ Did ARC retaliate against Mr$.$ Potts when it laid him off and did not offer him work on other jobs? Did these actions constitute violations of the LMRA? Explain your reasoning. CHAPTER $1$ Union$-$Management Relat Was "a Troublemaker" Laid off for Sharing Wage Information? Or for Business Reasons? tion Contractors $($ARC$),$ Inc. was Resources Manager, Dixie Boxrud, hand$-$wrote the fol hired to reroof and fix the bricks buildings of a regional university cracks in the bricks of several lowing message on Potts's July $1$st pay stub: job, several new employees were hired. One was experienced mason and bricklayer named Bruce Potts had completed a four$-$year union appren$-$ ticeship training program and another four years as a Please keep your pay rate to yourself. Thanks, Dixie B Further, when he distributed pay envelopes, Polizzi e shouldn't be discussing his pay with kers and "stirring up trouble" by encourag Potts." told Potts that h his co$-$wor rneyman; subsequently, he had $12$ years' experience ing them to complain. in both union and nonunion settings. ARC was a non At the end of the summer, Potts was laid off with union contractor Potts testified before the federal NLRB that he had been led to believe by both his immediate supervisor, four other workers, even though three others who did similar work kept their jobs. Potts a ccused ARC of lay Gene Polizzi, and a co$-$worker who had been hired wages. Potts testified. "I was telling everyone how they ing him off in retaliation for his complaining about the along with him, that the job would pay $$44$ per hour were getting short$-$changed and management s mak on arriving at the work site, Potts learned ing a lot of money off of them and how they ought to that it only paid $$35$ per hour, which made him angry, do something about it$-$threaten to quit given the nature of the work. or He described the work as difficult. It required hirm to wash the building surface and the roof, removing any something$-$to get what they deserved." Potts also indi cated that Polizzi had told him that ARC had bid on another, similar job and that Potts offered to work at Next, employees inspected the bricks, caulk, and that site, even though it was several hours' drive needed repairs. Rotted caulk and other defec$-$ However, he was never called to work tive building materials had to be removed and replaced. When the new caulk dried, the building was again any other ARC work sites. The General Counsel $($which often prosecutes cases involving allegations of unfair labor practices rayed with a high pressure hose. After the water dried, final waterproofing chemicals were applied. The under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended caulk work was the most laborious, calling for the great$-$ pertise and precision. Much of this work took by the Labor alleged that ARC was retaliating against Potts for his Management Relations Act $[$LMRA$]),$ place on a $100\backslash$deg roof under the sweltering summer sun. activities. Under federal labor law, employee In recognition of the excellent work that Potts was right to $"...$ engage in concerted activities for the pur doing, Polizzi recommended him for several pay raises: pose of colle first week of June$)$ to $$36\mathrm{.}13($second week$)$ to $$37$ for employers to "interfere throughout July and August, bargaining or other mutual aid or ts$\text{'}$s pay went from $$35($the protection.." $($Section $7)$; it is an unfair labor practice $($third week$)$ to $$39\mathrm{.}21($last week of June$)$ to $$40\mathrm{.}13$ employees in the exercise of $[$their$)$ rights" or to dis$-$ criminate $"$in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment or discourage membership in any labor organization $($Sections $8($a$)(1)$ and $8($a$)(3)$ of the LMRA$).$ The General Counsel argued that ARC's actions were illegal because $(1)$ they interfered with Potts's actions aimed at "mutual aid and protection" $($ raises for all workers$)$ and $(2)$ ARC discriminated against Potts when making layoff and rehiring decisions because of his efforts to organize the workers to com plain about their until he was laid off on n early September. As a result of these raises, Potts ecame the highest$-$paid non$-$managerial employee on Potts often told his co$-$workers what his current s and he encouraged them to ask for more money. He said everyone was underpaid and all the workers should all be getting more. He also criticized some of the work methods they were asked to use. One employee quit soon after Potts discussed wage rates with him. The following week, the firm's Human securing pay pay