Can you help me write a conclusion to my Week 5 assignment please?

User Generated

puevfgvarj766

Business Finance

Description

Can you please review the attachments below, the case study, Analysis and the Rule of law and help me with a 300 world conclusion ?



Include justification for your responses by citing applicable laws and/or legal cases in your analysis (If any were used)

Unformatted Attachment Preview

In the case study of World Tea & Coffee Inc. and The United Food and Commercials Workers Union AFL-CIO (Union) their members were distributing information to non-union employees without employer’s consent. According to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), employers are not allowed to prevent someone from distributing union literature during nonwork time, in non- work areas, such as parking lots or break rooms, except in unusual conditions. World Tea & Coffee Inc. made may attempts to talk to the union and tell them not to solicit because they do not have permission to do that and they are disturbing the employees and their place of business. Although employer can’t stop the employees from listening to union and deciding on their own in this case seams like employer is making the decision for the employees. In the case of Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 112 S.Ct. 841 (1992), According to "Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP." (2017), " On January 27, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer may bar nonemployee union organizers from distributing leaflets on private property. There are many other ways to communicate information to employees and the best way to do it is get permission from the employer. Anytime you enter a commercial or resident areas where you want to solicit you must have their permission to do so otherwise an employer and a resident always has the right to file a case against the solicitor. Reference https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/502/527/case.html Union Organizing Case Study MGT/434 Version 8 University of Phoenix Material Union Organizing Case Study World Tea & Coffee, Inc. (World Tea & Coffee), owned and operated a retail store in the Westtown Shopping Plaza in Westtown, New York. Eleven other stores were located between the World Tea & Coffee store and the parking lot, which was owned by World Tea & Coffee, Inc. The property in question is owned by the employer World Tea& Coffee, Inc. Although they have other business that occupy this shopping plaza and patrons for all business utilized this parking lot World Tea & Coffee does have the right to prohibit leafleting. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, AFL-CIO (Union), attempted to organize World Tea & Coffee’s 230 employees, all who were non-union. When a full-page advertisement in the local newspaper failed to attract the employees to unionize, nonemployee union organizers entered World Tea & Coffee’s parking lot and began putting handbills on car windshields parked in the employee parking lot area. The Union is making an attempt to unionize a group of employees but they have been unsuccessful in getting a response from the employees. The unions advertisement did not get a response from the employees. World Tea & Coffee’s manager informed the union organizers that World Tea & Coffee prohibited their unionizing efforts of solicitation and placing handbills of any kind on the property and directed them to get off the property. After they left, World Tea & Coffee personnel removed the handbills. Union organizers repeated their handbill efforts in the parking lot on several following occasions. On each event, nonemployee union organizers were directed to get off the property, and the handbills were collected and removed. As the owners of the parking lot property World Tea & Coffee prohibited the labor union from leafleting on their property. The union made several attempts to leaflet and each time they were asked to leave the property. The employer was wrong for telling the union that they prohibited their efforts to solicit their employees. The union filed a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). What should the result be in this case? Should the NLRB rule in favor of the union or in favor of the employer? Based on the facts presented in the in this case study the company is within their rights prohibit soliciting by the union. The manage should not have made the statement that the company prohibited their unionizing efforts of solicitation. The case should be accepted by the NLRB. The employer would have to prove that soliciting is prohibited for everyone not just the union. The employer would have to prove that their property had signage stating “No Soliciting” on the property. The NLRB should rule in the favor of the employer because it is apparent since the personnel not the managers removed the handbills from the property. Copyright © 2017 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved. 1 Rule of Law Rule of law is the principle or idea that everyone including people, businesses and all entities are accountable to laws fairly and consistently whether it is applied or enforced. Dictionary.com (2018) calls it “the principle of government by law.” In the case study of World Tea & Coffee Inc. and The United Food and Commercials Workers Union AFL-CIO (Union), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is “empowered to issue remedial orders, enforceable in the courts, to prevent commission of unfair labor practices” per Bennett-Alexander & Hartman (2015). In looking at this case the court will look how the law is interpreted, and did World Tea & Coffee Inc acted within their legal rights. Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, find it an unfair labor practice to interfere, whether it is by restrain or coercion, with employees acting within their rights among all unfair practices (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). World Tea & Coffee Inc. prevented non-employees from distributing soliciting materials about The United Food and Commercials Workers Union AFL-CIO (Union) to employees of the business at their property. Under the act, employers cannot prevent an employee from distributing the material to coworkers on property. Employers cannot prevent employees from receiving the material. Using the principle of Rule of Law, the court will decide if the law applies to this case fairly. They will look at other cases, and define who was affected, who caused it and was the law applicable to both parties. Reference Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2015). Employment Law for Business (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. Dictionary.com (2018) Rule of Law. Retrieved from: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rule-oflaw
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Find the attached completed work, If you have another one, please invite me to bid. Kindly give me a 5 star review too build my profile. Thanks

Running head: RULE OF LAW

1

Rule of Law
Student’s Name
Institution

RULE OF LAW

2
Rule of Law

The legality of the solicitation efforts at the World Tea & Coffee Inc. parking lot is
the source of ambiguity in the presented case. According to the law, it is illegal ...


Anonymous
Nice! Really impressed with the quality.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags