Assignment Paper Week 5

Assignment Paper Week 5 - Running Head: The Loudspeaker...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Running Head: The Loudspeaker Campaign Tactic The Loudspeaker Campaign Tactic Susan Henry Prof. Marilyn Fitzpatrick Business 405, Labor Relations July 30, 2011
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Explain the captive audience, 24-hour rule - A captive audience doctrine in this case applies to an employer or the union seeking to win certification engaging in coercive communication with employees that is designed to influence employees in their decision when voting during the certification process. The employer is commonly giving speech that are some form of anti-union themed or relating to their employees why they think Union representation would be a bad idea. These speeches may be given on company property and during company time which is why they are considered captive audience, since they are on the time clock when they are attending these meetings. In return the company does not have to give the Union an equal opportunity to debate these communications when they are on company property and during work hours. The captive audience rule is not applicable when the audience is on public property because they are not considered captive since they are free to leave and they are unhampered by any restrictions. It does however apply to the workplace since the employees cannot leave their workplace to avoid the communication. Also, the captive audience doctrine can be used on residential property when the degree of captivity makes it unfeasible for the employee to be unexposed to communication. [Sabelko v. City of Phoenix, 846 F. Supp. 810, 825 (D. Ariz. 1994)] (US Legal, Inc., 2010) The exception to this captive audience rule is during the 24 hour period before a representation election. This is known as a cooling off period in which the employees are to be given a period of time to decide how they want to vote based on their own conclusions drawn from the campaign without interference from either interested party. A violation of this rule during the 24 hour period could cause in the representation election results to be voided. (Wex, LII's legal
Background image of page 2
dictionary and legal encyclopedia) The defining factor seems to be, was the audience in fact “captive” and was the language or actions “coercive”? Section 8(b)(1)of the Taft Hartley Act deals with union restraint or coercion of employees in collective bargaining activities, or of employers in the selection of bargaining representatives. The most comprehensive decision on this question was one involving a local union of the United Shoe Workers of America and the Perry Norvell Company. In this case, the NLRB indicated some union activities which are prohibited, and some which are not. “The Board held the following union acts not coercive on employees in their selection of a bargaining agent: (1) assembling a large number of people around the entrance of the plant, since there was no attempt to prevent entrance to or exit from the plant; (2) threatening to run the opposing union representative out of town; (3) name-calling, such as "scab"; and (4) forming a
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/28/2011 for the course BUS 405 taught by Professor Marilynfitzpatrick during the Spring '11 term at Strayer.

Page1 / 10

Assignment Paper Week 5 - Running Head: The Loudspeaker...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online