Legal and Human Resource Dimensions of Business Management

Question: Discuss:Function of unions generally Does the action in the case which led to the case being filed harm the business environment? Does the result in this case harm the business environment? Ethical considerations that arise with union practices and collective bargaining. Answer: Introduction Labour laws seeks to regulate the relation between theemployers and the employees working under an organisation. The labour laws set the standard of practice and the traditions to be followed in an organisation. On one hand, the labour laws seeks to protect the employees in terms of their collectivebargaining and union rights and on the other hand it also empowers the employers to take appropriate action and initiate disciplinary proceedings against the misconduct of the employees(Morris, 2015). This paper is concerned with the analysis of a case relating to unfair practice adopted by a Corporation in the treatment of its employees. Aaronkisela vs Boothwyn Fire Company No. 1 (Cases 04CA133498 and 04CA140365) Facts of the case: Aaron Kisela was employed as an emergency medical technician in the Boothwyn Fire Company No. 1, which used to provide services of rescuing people from fire, ambulance services and other related services.The Company comes within the definition of an employer under the provisions of the National Labour Relations Act, 1935(Chaison, 2014). Kisela was an employee and she worked as an emergency medical technician (EMT)since 2009. The chief of the EMTs was Michael Lynch. Kisela was an able employee and he was given good points at the timeof evaluation of his performance on January 29, 2014. In addition no disciplinary records have ever been initiated against him. He was even considered for a promotion and accordingly a staff meeting was called up on April 24. In the meeting, Kisela along with other employees raised the issue of pay raise but the employers were in no mood to increase the payments as they were focusing on expanding their operations. Thereafter on July 10, 2014 Kisela was dis charged from the Corporation. Kisela demanded a reason for his discharge from the employers. The employers incorporated various documents against Kisela in his personal file. The discharge of the Kisela was grounded on the reason that Kisela had been involved in misconducts during his term of the employment. Issue: Whether the employers have violated Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labour Relations Act, 1935 (Act) in the treatment of Kisela or not. Arguments: As an employee Kisela had certain rights under the provisions of the Act. Under Section 7 Kisela had the right to join or form an organisation for the purpose of collective bargaining. Kisela had proved to be a good employee by effectively discharging his functions and he had done his work honestly and with utmost sincerity. This can be corroborated by the fact that he was considered for a promotion. He had done his work with dedication, he had given ample time towards his work and had always followed the command of the employers. The fact that he was promised a pay raise by the employers furtherraised his expectation. In the staff meeting he along with the other employees has exercise his right under Section 7 of the Act and he was entitled to legal protection for the same(Gould, 2013). The employers did not fulfil their promise of enhancing the payments to their EMTs and further violated Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by adopting unfair labour practices in relation to the discharge of Kisela (Greenhouse, 2013). The employers had actually fabricated certain incidents of misconducts against Kisela. Kisela was not aware of any such misconduct and all such documents of misconducts had not represented the side of Kiselas story. All these showed unfair practices being adopted by the employers and as a result appropriate action ought to be taken against the employers(Hatton, 2014). Decision: The National Labour Relations Board ordered the employers to reinstate Kisela with full effect in the same position in which he was working with the Corporation. If the same position could not possibly be offered to Kisela then he had to be offered an equivalent position in the organisation. The Board further ordered the employers to remove all the documents which had been incorporated against Kisela from his personal file. The employers were further ordered to compensate Kisela for the loss which he has suffered due to the discriminatory treatment. Merit of the case: The case has merits as far as the rights and protection of the employees are considered. This is an important decision in favour pf the employees and it sought to shield the employees against any sort of discriminatory action. The employees are an important part of an organisation and they perform the main functions of an organisation (Roof, 2013).In an organisation which is involved in fire rescue operations the employees have to do take a lot of risk and many dangers are involved in these kind of operations. The discharge of Kisela has been very unfortunate and is a threat to the employees who work sincerely in an organisation.This judgment has a positive impact from the point of view of the employees and it seeks to deter the employers from indulging in these sort of unfair practices. Analysis of the case Collective bargaining is an important right for the employees under any organisation. The labour laws seeks to ensure that the employees are not subjected to discriminatorytreatments. Under the labour laws, the employees have the full right against unfair and biasedpractices of the employers. The case of Aaron Kisela is important from the point of view of the employees. The case is significant in the sense that the employees are fully protected in an organisation and they are under no pressure or threat while working during the term of their employment. The case is also noteworthy in the sense that the employers will now think twice before terminating the terms of employment of an employee. There is no doubt the employers are the ultimate decision makers in an organisation but they are also subject to some fair standards practices while treating their employees (EigenGarofalo, 2013). In this case the employers were engaged in expanding their operations and they were formulating polic ies for giving effect to the same. But they also needed to keep in mind the interest of the employees. Not fulfilling a promise and deviating from a commitmentdoes not go well with the spirit of an organisation. Moreover, a promise raises expectation of the employees and the same the employees feel hurt feel hurt when the same is broken.Consequently a confrontation between the employees and the employers becomes inevitable. The employees have a right of collective bargaining and there is nothing wrong or immoral in the exercise of those rights(Dabscheck, 2015). The employers should be good managers and know well how to handle the demands of the employees in a calm and polite way. In the present case, the bargaining between the employers and the employees have culminated in the unfortunate dismissal of Kisela which is unfair and unethical. But at the same time the employees should not misuse this right to take unfair advantage by sitting in a strike or announcing a lock out.In those cases, the employers have the right to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the employees. Therefore both the employers and employees are ought to be within their limits for preserving a good environment ion the workplace. Conclusion The present case reflects a common practice which are prevalent in many organisations or workplaces. The employers have definitely crossed their limits and not respected the rights of the employees in respect of collective bargaining. They have indeed taken an unfair step and discharged Kisela improperly.In the light of these circumstances, the order of the National Labour Relations Board is a strong and rational order and the same will obviously lead to a better work environment in the Corporation where the employees and employers will work harmoniously and with cooperation, which is important for the effective and efficient operation of the Corporation. References: Chaison, G. (2014). Will the Unions Find Their Way in the World of Globalization?. InThe Unions Response to Globalization(pp. 51-57). Springer New York. Dabscheck, B. (2015). The end of American labor unions: The right-to-work movement and the erosion of collective bargaining [Book Review].Labour History, (109), 219. Dabscheck, B. (2015). The end of American labor unions: The right-to-work movement and the erosion of collective bargaining [Book Review].Labour History, (109), 219. Eigen, Z. J., Garofalo, S. (2013). Less Is More: A Case for Structural Reform of the National Labor Relations Board.Minn. L. Rev.,98, 1879. Gould IV, W. B. (2013).A primer on American labor law. Cambridge University Press. Greenhouse, S. (2013). Even if it enrages your boss, social net speech is protected.The New York Times. Obtenido el,3. Hatton, E. (2014). Temporary Weapons: Employers' Use of Temps against Organized Labor.Industrial Labor Relations Review,67(1), 86-110. Morris, C.J., 2015. Returning Members-Only Collective Bargaining to the American Workplace.Members-only Library. Neumann, T. C., Taylor, J. E., Fishback, P. (2013). Comparisons of weekly hours over the past century and the importance of work-sharing policies in the 1930s.The American Economic Review,103(3), 105-110. Roof, T. (2013).American Labor, Congress, and the Welfare State, 19352010. JHU Press.