Mini hrd 350

The Troubled Union Elections The Troubled Union Elections The events that happened during the labor elections in this organization are quite complicated. Although both the employer and the union were in a disagreement, the law is very clear on what should be done. For this reason therefore, if granted an opportunity to preside over this case as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), I would keenly listen to all of them before eventually making the final decision on whether to repeat the election.
Even if the supervisor personally attended three of the labor meetings, he did not break the labor laws at all. As said by the management, the supervisor had not been sent to the meetings to represent the management. Hence, his action was not illegal. It did not violate the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. I would arrive at this decision based on the fact that Section 8(C) of the Taft-Hartley Act states that an employer’s action can not be regarded as unfair if it has no promise of benefits, threat of reprisal or force.
While lodging its complaints, the union did not accuse the supervisor of any interference that might be taken to be an unlawful labor practice. Besides, the management said that the supervisor had purely gone to the union’s meeting on personal grounds, but not to cause any interference whatsoever. He could not influence the election process. Attending union meetings is not an offense. So, in my opinion, there would be no reason for repeating the election no matter who lost it.