Deep south forest products: management unfair labor practices during union decertification?

Schnake, Mel ; Williams, Robert J.

CASE DESCRIPTION

This case examines the process by which the unionized employees of a firm take steps to decertify their labor union as their bargaining agent. Further, the case examines certain actions taken by the firm's management during the decertification process, and whether those actions are illegal as defined by the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.

The case has a difficulty level of three, appropriate for junior level students. The case is designed to be taught in one class hour, and is expected to require one to two hours of outside preparation by students.

CASE SYNOPSIS

A firm and its employees' labor union(s) often share a tense and adversarial relationship. From time to time, employees may decide that the bargaining advantages provided by their union no longer secures them the wages and benefits they seek, and they may seek to have the union decertified as their bargaining agent. This case examines this scenario, and demonstrates how a firm's management can legally express its views to its employees regarding the pros and cons of a union decertification. This case is an effective teaching tool for students in a labor relations course, a human resources course, and can also be used in the introductory management principles course.

INSTRUCTORS' NOTES

Learning Objectives

The twin learning objectives of this case are:

1. Briefly describe to students the process by which a union may be decertified and lose its recognition as the bargaining agent for a firm's employees.

2. Demonstrate to students the difference between legal and illegal activity involving a firm and its employees' union as specified under provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.

QUESTIONS

1. Under Section 8 of the NLRA, to what extent can a firm express its views to its employees regarding a labor union and its activities?

A firm's management can legally express its views about a labor union in either written, printed, or visual form, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.

2. The UFCW union alleges that the August 28-30 speeches constitute an illegal act, in that Jim Green promised that he would "not forget the employees hard work," and the company would "not cut wages or take away any fringe benefits if the employees voted the union out." Do you think these statements constitute an illegal act? Why or why not?

Green's pledge not to forget the employees' hard work does not mention employee wages or benefits. Also, this statement occurs in the context of an apology for past racial discrimination. It does not promise any reward if employees reject the union. Further, the statement that the company would not cut wages or take away benefits refers to existing wages and benefits. This is not a promise of new wages or benefits. Thus, these statements are legal within the provisions of the NLRA.

3. Would your answer to Question 2 be different if Jim Green had promised to increase employees' fringe benefits if the employees voted the union out? Yes, a promise of higher wages and benefits if the employees rejected the union would constitute an illegal act.

4. Would you consider the statements in the company newsletter, the Tall Pines, to constitute an unfair labor practice? Why or why not?

The statements do not contain any promise of benefits. On the contrary, the newsletter states, "I can't make any promises because that would be illegal." Also, the newsletter does not contain a threat of force. Thus, the statements in the newsletter do not constitute an illegal act.

5. Jim Green, in his No Cut Guarantee to employees, made some guarantees to employees. Were his guarantees illegal?

The guarantees do not contain any threats or promises of benefits to employees. Thus, the guarantees are legal and do not constitute an unfair labor practice.

6. Do you think this statement by Jim Green constituted an unfair labor practice? "Many people have asked how they can get out of the union. Well if you have any questions about how to do that it's covered by the checkoff authorization on the last page of your contract--page 55, which requires you to give the company written noticed of stopping your dues. Or you can just see Personnel."

This statement does not encourage employees to resign from the union or to revoke their dues checkoff authorizations. Under Section 8c of the NLRA, an employer may lawfully furnish accurate information in response to employees' questions if it does so without making threats or promises of benefits. That is what occurred in this situation.

7. Do you think the 8% across the board wage increase on November 22 was legal? Why or why not?

The wage increase went into effect the day after the collective-bargaining agreement had expired. Deep South had withdrawn its recognition of the Union, and had no legal responsibility to bargain with it. Thus, the wage increase was lawful.

EPILOGUE

On October 12, 2004, A hearing was held before an administrative law judge involving the complaints filed by the UFCW against Deep South Forest Products. On January 15, 2005, the judge rendered his opinion as to whether Deep South had committed any unfair labor practices and had violated any provisions of the NLRA. The judge ruled that Deep South had not engaged in conduct in violation of the Act, as alleged. The judge issued an order that the complaint filed by the UFCW be dismissed in its entirety.

Mel Schnake, Valdosta State University

Robert J. Williams, Valdosta State University