Unions have a long and storied place in the history of the U.S. workforce, and the subject has often been a heated topic of discussion at many bargaining and family dinner tables. Consider your experi

MHR 6401, Employment Law 1 Cou rse Learning Outcomes for Unit VI Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 7. Discuss bargaining matters under U.S. labor laws. 7.1 Identify the historical influences and legal precedents of labor relations in a given scenario. 7.2 Discuss the impact of labor laws on non -union workplaces. Course/Unit Learning Outcomes Learning Activity 7.1 Unit Lesson Chapter 14 Unit VI Scholarly Activity 7.2 Unit Lesson Chapter 14 Unit VI Scholarly Activity Reading Assignment Chapter 14: Unions and Collective Bargaining, pp. 495 –541 Unit Lesson Labor law is a distinct area of employment law and somewhat dissimilar from the employment laws that have been featured in previous units. Labor law involves employees’ rights to collectively bargain with employers about issues in the workplace. Rather tha n each employee negotiating individually with his or her employer, labor law protects employees’ ability to join together and if a union is properly elected, permits unions to represent employees to bargain in an organized and collective fashion. Labor law in the United States has a long and acrimonious history. It grew out of the rise in manufacturing and the increase in the size of the working class in the early 1800s. At that time, many courts considered activity by workers such as striking and picketing to be criminal conspiracies. Oftentimes, charges were filed against workers, and they were brought to trial and subsequently convicted for attempting to improve working conditions through union activities. Businesses also sought injunctions again st strikes, forced workers to sign yellow -dog contracts agreeing to not belong to a union, and used antitrust laws to battle unions. Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA) and other laws in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s to give labor unions more equal footing and rights in the workplace. Whatever the NLRA's shortcomings and long -term failures, it changed the U.S. power structure for the next 50 years. The labor movement born from the passage of these laws was once quite powerful. Today, howe ver, unions do not enjoy the popularity they once held. There are a number of reasons for this decrease in the prevalence of unions: increasingly better working conditions, employers becoming more sensitive to the special needs of employees, and the creat ion and consistent enforcement of fair policies. Additionally, employers have better trained front -line supervisors to communicate more effectively and better handle disputes and conflict. Further, federal and state laws protect all employees in ways that unions did in the past. Finally, employers are increasingly providing alternative dispute resolution processes to handle employee complaints, decreasing the need to turn to unions to help resolve grievances. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (B LS, 2015), the percentage of workers in the United States who were members of unions was the same in 2014 and 2015 – 11.1 percent. Compare this to 1983, the first year for which comparable data was available, when the percentage was 20.1 percent. The highl ights from the 2015 BLS data conclude that the highest unionization rates are found in public service categories; that males UNIT VI STUDY GUIDE Unions and Collective Bargaining MHR 6401, Employment Law 2 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title are more likely to be a union member than women are; that Blacks are more often union members than Whites, Asians, or Hispanics; th at nonunion workers’ wages were only 79% of union workers’ wages; and that public workers are more likely to be union members than private (BLS, 2015). With just 11.1 percent of workers in the private sector represented by unions, employers who do not ha ve employees represented by unions often believe that labor laws have no relevance for them. They are wrong.

Because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives employees the right to form a labor union, it gives employees the right to communicate and co operate with each other concerning terms and conditions of employment, which are actions known as protected concerted activity . These protections for nonunion employees have been a primary focus of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in recent years, and NLRB decisions have had implications for many types of employer policies and practices. A main area of impact is employer communication systems, including e -mail. The rule had been that an employer could prohibit use of e -mail for all nonbusiness pu rposes. Thus, an employer could not prohibit use of e -mail (or bulletin boards) for protected concerted activity, while permitting employees to use e -mail to seek donations for a charity or sell vintage jewelry, for example. In Purple Commc’n, Inc . (2014), the NLRB held that employers can no longer ban employees using the employer’s e -mail system to communicate with each other during non -working time about terms and conditions of employment. In reaching this decision, the NLRB reasoned that e -mail communica tion is central to the modern workplace, and to fulfill the NLRA, employees must have access to this method of communication for protected concerted activity. Moreover, although the case involved union employees, the ruling applies to nonunion employees as well. Social media policies have also come under scrutiny. In Chipotle Serv. LLC (2016), the employer learned that one of its employees had posted negative comments about the company on Twitter. In response to a customer’s tweet, “free Chipotle is the b est thanks,” the employee tweeted, “nothing is free, only cheap #labor. Crew members make $8.50hr how much is that steak bowl really?” ( Chipotle Serv. LLC , 2016, p. 7). The employee’s managers met with him reviewed the company’s social media policy, which prohibited making “disparaging, false, misleading . . . statements about or relating to Chipotle, and asked the employee to remove the tweets. The removal request was later challenged as a violation of the employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity. The content of the tweet clearly related to the terms and conditions of employment, but in this case, the NLRB found that the tweets were nothing more than an individual gripe and therefore not concerted ( Chipotle Serv. LLC , 2016). The NLRB has m ade it clear, however, that prohibitions on false statements are overbroad because even false statements by employees are protected unless they are knowingly or recklessly false. Additionally, a prohibition on disparaging comments is too broad because empl oyees have the right to make derogatory statements about the terms and conditions of employment. Even a profanity -laced Facebook post about a supervisor may not subject an employee to discipline under certain circumstances. In Pier Sixty, LLC (2015), in the midst of a union organizing campaign and two days before the union certification election, an employee took a break and made a Facebook post using a profane name to refer to a supervisor who had spoken harshly to the employee. The post criticized how t he supervisor speaks to people, contained a comment about the supervisor’s mother and family, and ended with, “Vote YES for the UNION!!!!” ( Pier Sixty, LLC , 2015, p. 2). The NLRB found that this comment was protected, and the employee could not be fired fo r it based on the company’s anti -harassment policy because the post was made in the midst of a union campaign, the comment contained a direct expression of union support, and the profanity was common without discipline in the company’s workplace. Another key area in labor law is the use of staffing services to supply workers to a business and the determination of whether those staffing service workers are also employees of the business for purposes of union representation. In Brow ning -Ferris Indus. of Cal . (2015), the union represented employees of Browning - Ferris Industries (BFI) and sought to extend its representation to 240 Leadpoint Business Services employees who provided services at the BFI facility. The NLRB reviewed whether BFI was a joint employer with Leadpoint, a staffing services company, in connection with the union representation election covering Leadpoint’s employees. The NLRB adopted a new, broader standard for answering this question, finding that it must examine whether an employer that u ses a staffing company’s employees affects the means and manner of those staffing company employees’ work and terms of employment, either directly or indirectly. The NLRB found that BFI was a joint employer with Leadpoint, relying on evidence of BFI’s indi rect control and contractual authority over essential terms and conditions of the Leadpoint employees’ employment ( Brow ning - Ferris Indus. of Cal. , 2015). Businesses must examine how this decision affects the use of workers supplied through third parties. MHR 6401, Employment Law 3 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title It is of interest and worth noting that Democrats have historically held a majority of the NLRB member positions and during these times, many of the decisions have shown the appearance of being oriented toward employees and unions. Just as in other areas g overnment, as the NLRB composition changes in the future, some of these decisions may be overturned by the new majority. As such, it is imperative that employers and those who support employee and labor relations stay informed on these developments as they unfold. References Browning -Ferris Indus. of Cal., 362 N.L.R.B. No. 186 (2015). Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017, January 26). Union members – 2016 [News release] . Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf Chipotle Serv. LLC, 364 N.L.R.B. No. 72 (2016). Pier Sixty, LLC, 362 N.L.R.B. No. 59 (2015). Purple Commc’n, Inc ., 361 N.L.R.B. No. 126 (2014). Suggested Reading The following PowerPoint presentations are supplements to the textbook chapter readings and are provided for further knowledge and review of the unit materials. Chapter 14: Click here to access the PowerPoint presentation. Click here to access a PDF file of the PowerPoint presentation. Learning Activities (Nong raded) Nong raded Learning Activities ar e provided to aid students in their course of study. You do not have to submit them. If you have questions, contact your instructor for further guidance and information. At the end of each chapter of your textbook, scenario -driven questions provide legal issues and realistic situations that relate to employment law. Exploring these questions allows you the opportunity to further your understanding of the concepts in each chapter and prepares you for similar situations you may encounter in your workplace.  Review the Chapter 14 questions in your textbook on pages 541 –544.