NO Plaguarism

I

Questions and Case Problems

and Hours. Calzoni Boating Co. is an inrersrare

nton an w-ei-e employed at an appliance plant. Their job required them to clo occa_ sional maintenance work ll,hile standing on a wire mesh twenty feet abor.e the plant floor. Other employees had fallen through the mesh, and one was killed by the tall When Denton and Carlo were askecl by their super

rsor to clo r.vork that r.vould Jikely require rhem ro walk on the mesh, they relused clue to their lear ol bodill, harm or death. Because of their refusal to do the requesred r.vork, the tu,o employees were fired from therr jobs. Was their discharge u.ronghrl? If so, under what federal emplovment la*'l lb whar lecleral agency or clepartment shoulcl rhey turn lor assistance?

l7-3 Unfair Labor Practices. Consoliclated Srores rs undergo- ing a unronization campaign. prior to the union elecrion, management states that the unton is unncccssary to pro_ tect s orkers. Manageme nt also provicies bonuses and u agc incrcrrses to the r,vorke rs clunng this pe riod. -fhe cmplor tcs relecL the unron. Union organizers pror.st rhat the $age increases during rhe election campaign unfaLrlr' pre.ludiced .he vote. Should these wage increases be regardecl as an

1r labor practice? Discuss

I AIiens. Nicolc Tipton ancl Sadik Seleri owned and raLecl a restaurant 1n [o\'a. Acting on a tip lrom the local 'pohce, agents of Immrgratron and Customs Enforcement ereculed search warrants at the res[aurant and at an apart- ment where some restallrant lr,orkers livecl. The agents clis_ covered six undocumentecl aliens working at the restaurant ancl Iiving rogerher. When rhe l-9 lbrms for the restauranrs employees u,ere reviewed, none were found for the six aliens. They u,ere paid rn cash while other employees were pard by check. The 1u11, lound Tipton and Seleri guilty oi hirrng antl hrrlrorint rllcsal ,rlrcn, Rolh 1ys1-6 givt.rr pri-nn terms. The delendants chailenged rhe conviction, conrencl- ing that they drd not violate the law because they clicl not knorv that the sorkers \-ere unauthorized aliens. Was that argument credible? Wh1. or rvh1. not? lLlnited States r,. ripron, 5lB E3d 591 (Bth Cir 2O0B)l :,r-l:. Vesting. The Unired Auto \,\brkers (UAW) represenrs rl,orkers at Caterpillar, lnc., and negotiates labc-rr contracts on their behalf. A 19BB labor agreemenr providecl Iifetime no-cosr medical benefits Ibr retirees but did nor state when

the employees' rights to those benefits vested. This agree_ ment exprred in 1991 Caterprllar and the UAW did not reach a new agreemenr until 1gg8. Under the new agree_ ment, retiree medical benefits were subject to certain lim_ its, ancl retirees were to be responsible lor paying some of the costs. Wcrrkers who retired during the period when no agreement was in force f,led a suit in a federal district courr to obtain benefits under the 19BB agreement. Re\.iew the Employee Retirement lncome Security Act vesting rules for private pension plans on page 510. What is the most plau_ sihle applicarion oI those rules by analogy ro these facrs? Discuss. lWhnr:tt v. Cattrpillu; tnc., 153 F3cl 1000 (6rh Crr. 200e)l

Tl' :" 3rp Case Problem with Sample Ansriyer. Minimum

LLXI Wage. Misty Cumbie workecl as a warrress ar Vira Cale in Portlancl, Oregon. The cald was owned ancl operated by Woocly Woo, lnc. Woody Woo paicl its servers an hourly wage that was higher than the state,s mrnrmum wage, but the servers were required to contnbute their tips lnto a "tip poo1." Approximatell, one-rhircl ol the rip_pool lunds went to the servers, ancl the rest w2ts distrihutecl to the kirchen stafl that orher$,ise rtrrell,receivecl tips lirr Lherr service. Cumbie suecl \bodv Woo. alleging thar the rip_ pooling arrangement riolated the mintmum \irge pro\1- sions ol rhe Fair Labor Srandards Act (FLSA) The district court dismrssed the surt lor lailure to slate a claim. Cumbie appealed. Did \oocl1' \bos tip-pooling policy violate the FLSA nghrs ol rhe senersl Explain your answer. [Cumbit t,. Woody \l'bo, Inc.,596F.3d 577 (9th Cir 20tO)l

-To view a sample answer for Case problem 17_6, go to Appendix F at the end of this text. 1.7--: Unfair labor Practices. The Laborers lnrernarionai Unron ol Norrh America, Local 578. ancl Shaii, Srone & Webster Construction, lnc., u,ere partlcs trr a collective bargaining agreemenl that covered \'r]rkers at the company The agree- ment contalned a rrnion-recunty pror,rsion that required companv emplor.ees (.$-hLr u'ere represented by the union) to join the unron. ll:rn employee failed to.ioin or p.i uniorl dues, the union recluesred rhat the employee be fired. Afier Sebedeo Lope: nenr ro rvork for Shaw Stone. he failed to pay his union rnrtiation fee or monrhh tlues Lopezs shop steu.ard told him ro pay these fees. although rhe amounr owed "l,as unclear. He was also told rhat the union rras pressing rhe company to fire him. Lopez agreed ro pay the lees and lelt a money order for $200 at the unions officc but thq union claimed that it did not find the monc !,r.!icr. Lopez promrsed to pay another $215 in a lerr ciars. but the union demandecl his immediate dismrssal. Shas, Stone frred him on rhe spot. Lopez con'rplainecl ro the National Labor Relatrons Boarcl (NLRB), u,hich broughr r_rnlair labor practice charges against the union. An administratiYe las, judge ruled agarnst the union. and the NLRB agreed. The

busrness engagecl in manufacturing ancl selling boats. The company has five hundred nonunion .rnpluy""r. Representatives oI these employees are requestrng a four_ da1', ten-hours-per-day workweek, and Calzoni is con- cerned that this would require paying rime and a half al'ter