Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings


Homework answers / question archive / National Labor Relations Act Analysis Bryan Nickerson Employment Law in the Successful Workplace Lynn MacBeth Capella University • The question that this case intended to answer was whether or not an “agency shop arrangement” is provided for in the National Labor Relations Act

National Labor Relations Act Analysis Bryan Nickerson Employment Law in the Successful Workplace Lynn MacBeth Capella University • The question that this case intended to answer was whether or not an “agency shop arrangement” is provided for in the National Labor Relations Act

Business

National Labor Relations Act Analysis Bryan Nickerson Employment Law in the Successful Workplace Lynn MacBeth Capella University • The question that this case intended to answer was whether or not an “agency shop arrangement” is provided for in the National Labor Relations Act. The answer would be aligned with the amendment that would give an employer the liberty to bargain with the labor union and proceed to include the information in a collective bargaining agreement. Introduction • The Union demanded in writing that the employer bargain should supplement the National Agreement with the Union for the parties to act as a condition for continued employment. • The National Agreement that was to be supplemented with the Union had provisions to create a “union shop. • However, the employer refused to bargain with the Union over such a proposal. The General Motors’ Shop Position • General Motors held the position that an agency shop would be an unfair labor practice for an employee. • In justifying this position, General Motors identified that it interfered with, restrained, and in other way coerced the employees into an exercise of the rights that are provided for in the seventh section. The Union’s Position • The Union supported the agency shop • In a statement the union confirmed recorded “We do not regard the "agency shop arrangement" as being something lesser than a "union shop." We believe it is entirely different. A Union security agreement is premised upon membership in a labor organization. An "agency shop" on the contrary is based upon an employee paying charges in lieu of union membership as a condition of employment.” The Court’s Role • The Court of Appeals as the court that made a ruling on this case. • The court acted to meet its constitutional obligation. It acted to adjudicate the legal dispute between the two parties. • It proceeded to carry out the administration of justice while acting under the law. • The ruling was that an agency shop did not constitute an unfair labor practice and was not prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. The Relationship of a Case with the NLRA • • • The Congress enacted the NLRA in 1935 The main purpose of the enactment of the NLRA was for the prevention of oppressive practices for workers especially in the private sector. The relationship of the case with the NLRA being the responsibility of the Act to provide guidance on the presence of any unfair labor practices especially in regards to collective bargaining and the setting up of an agency shop at GM. Historical Impact of the Case • • • The acknowledgement of the existence of union-management struggles. The General motors case as having a great impact on the formation of agency shops within organizations even in the states that did not allow the formation of union shops. The court decision as changing the relationship between the management and the employees of GM. • National Labor Relations Board v. General Motors Corp., 1963 Case. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/7 34/ References • NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION. (n.d.). Retrieved December 22, 2020, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/3 73/734 • Practical Law. (n.d.). Retrieved December 22, 2020, from https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3a9 a3523ef1211e28578f7ccc38dcbee/View/FullText .html?contextData=%28sc.Default%2 5/5/2021 Capella University Scoring Guide Tool HRM-FPX5065 u03a1 - HR Challenge: National Labor Relations Act Analysis Learner: Bryan , Nickerson OVERALL COMMENTS Bryan, At your request, I have applied your prior scores to this assessment. Warmly, Lynn RUBRICS CRITERIA 1 Analyze both General Motor's and the union's position in the NLRB case. COMPETENCY Apply legal thinking to human resource management issues in the workplace to ensure compliance. NON_PERFORMANCE: Does not analyze General Motor's and the union's position in the NLRB case. BASIC: Analyzes either the General Motor's or the union's position in the NLRB case, or neither one is a thoughtful analysis. PROFICIENT: Analyzes both the General Motor's and the union's position in the NLRB case. DISTINGUISHED: Analyzes both the General Motor's and the union's position in the NLRB case, showing insightful understanding of the facts of the case that are detailed. Comments: >You analyzed both parties' positions in the case, but there was some lack of clarity around GM's position that it would be an unfair labor practice (ULP) to bargain over the agency shop. GM's position was based on Indiana's right-to-work law. https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails 1/7 5/5/2021 Capella University Scoring Guide Tool CRITERIA 2 Analyze the role of the court in the NLRB v. General Motors case. COMPETENCY Apply legal thinking to human resource management issues in the workplace to ensure compliance. NON_PERFORMANCE: Does not describe the role of the court in the NLRB v. General Motors case. BASIC: Describes the role of the court in the NLRB v. General Motors case. PROFICIENT: Analyzes the role of the court in the NLRB v. General Motors case. DISTINGUISHED: Evaluates the role of the court in the NLRB v. General Motors case, including the impact of the court's decision on organizations and unions in general. Comments: >You did not correctly identify the court. The case was a decision of the US Supreme Court, not an appeals court. You correctly found that the court ruled in favor of the NLRB, ?nding that it was not an ULP to bargain with the union. https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails 2/7 5/5/2021 Capella University Scoring Guide Tool CRITERIA 3 Analyze the relationship of a case with the NLRA. COMPETENCY Apply legal thinking to human resource management issues in the workplace to ensure compliance. NON_PERFORMANCE: Does not describe the relationship of a case with the NLRA. BASIC: Describes the relationship of a case with the NLRA. PROFICIENT: Analyzes the relationship of a case with the NLRA. DISTINGUISHED: Evaluates the relationship of a case with the NLRA, including case evidence, assertions, and ?ndings. Comments: You described the relationship of the case to the NLRA to be based on the fact that the NLRA is the place where one goes for guidance, but this was not a clear response. The relationship of this case to the NLRA is that the NLRA requires an employer to bargain with the union, forming the basis of this lawsuit, which found that GM committed an unfair labor practice in refusing to bargain. The NLRA allows a union shop, but state law must be upheld. Here, Indiana had a right-to-work law that prohibited compulsory union membership. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a con?ict between laws and had to resolve it. The resolution was to legitimize the agency shop that compromises payment of dues in favor of a fee that compensates the union for its CBA efforts.< https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails 3/7 5/5/2021 Capella University Scoring Guide Tool CRITERIA 4 Evaluate the historical impact of a case on the union/management power struggle. COMPETENCY Evaluate the relationship between historical perspectives and events and the alignment of human resource management and the law. NON_PERFORMANCE: Does not analyze the historical impact of a case on the union/management power struggle. BASIC: Analyzes the historical impact of a case on the union/management power struggle, but fails to address signi?cant impacts. PROFICIENT: Evaluates the historical impact of a case on the union/management power struggle. DISTINGUISHED: Evaluates the historical impact of a case on the union/management power struggle, and proposes future impacts. Comments: You correctly found that the main historical impact of the case was the court's approval of the agency shop. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, had the ?nal word on the legitimacy of the agency shop, settling the matter once and for all. https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails 4/7 5/5/2021 Capella University Scoring Guide Tool CRITERIA 5 Assess how a court decision changed the relationship between management and employees in a case, and in unionized organizations overall. COMPETENCY Examine relationships between law, human resource management practices, and business activities. NON_PERFORMANCE: Does not describe how a court decision changed the relationship between management and employees in a case, and in unionized organizations overall. BASIC: Describes how a court decision changed the relationship between management and employees in a case, and in unionized organizations overall, but does not provide a supportive rationale. PROFICIENT: Assesses how a court decision changed the relationship between management and employees in a case, and in unionized organizations overall. DISTINGUISHED: Assesses how a court decision changed the relationship between management and employees in a case, and in unionized organizations overall, and proposes future outcomes. Comments: You are correct that the case changed the relationship between unions and management. The union won the case, strengthening the agency shop. An example of a way the case might have changed the relationship is Janus v. AFSCME, a 2018 Supreme Court decision that no longer allows public sector (government) unions to require union membership or dues due to 1st Amendment free speech rights. https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails 5/7 5/5/2021 Capella University Scoring Guide Tool CRITERIA 6 Support main points, assertions, arguments, conclusions, or recommendations with relevant and credible evidence. COMPETENCY Communicate clearly, accurately, and professionally in the HR ?eld. NON_PERFORMANCE: Does not support main points, assertions, arguments, conclusions, or recommendations with relevant and credible evidence. BASIC: Sources lack relevance or credibility, or the evidence is not persuasive or explicitly supportive of main points, assertions, arguments, conclusions, or recommendations. PROFICIENT: Supports main points, assertions, arguments, conclusions, or recommendations with relevant and credible evidence. DISTINGUISHED: Supports main points, assertions, arguments, conclusions, or recommendations with relevant, credible, and convincing evidence. Skillfully combines virtually error-free source citations with a perceptive and coherent synthesis of the evidence. Comments: You provided a reference list but not in-text citations to show where sources were used. < https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails 6/7 5/5/2021 Capella University Scoring Guide Tool CRITERIA 7 Apply APA style and formatting to scholarly writing. COMPETENCY Communicate clearly, accurately, and professionally in the HR ?eld. NON_PERFORMANCE: Does not apply APA style and formatting to scholarly writing. BASIC: Applies APA style and formatting to scholarly writing incorrectly and/or inconsistently, detracting noticeably from good scholarship. PROFICIENT: Applies APA style and formatting to scholarly writing. DISTINGUISHED: Applies APA style and formatting to scholarly writing. Exhibits strict and nearly ?awless adherence to stylistic conventions, document structure, and source attributions. Comments: APA requires in-text citations to give credit to sources. https://scoringguide.capella.edu/grading-web/gradingdetails 7/7
 

Option 1

Low Cost Option
Download this past answer in few clicks

15.89 USD

PURCHASE SOLUTION

Already member?


Option 2

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE