Analysis of the case by a national representative of the Retail Workers Union
Unions are an integral part of employment relations in various countries. Every employee has a right to join a labor union. Unions provide a platform that enables employees to air the grievances. Since unions have so much power, they may reduce the oppression of employees by their employers. Eat Right Ltd violates several rights of its employees. The company does not give proper remuneration to its employees. This is because the company only pays its employees for overtime work only during emergencies.
According to the existing labor regulations, it is illegal for employers to interfere with the formation of a trade union. However, the management of Eat Right interferes with the formation of a trade union. The company restricts its employees from joining a trade union.
The company uses coercion, intimidation, and threats to restrict its employees from joining a trade union. The company threatens to sack its employees if they join a trade union, which may take them to a strike. In addition, the company uses deception to deter its employees from joining a trade union. The company claims that employees of the company would pay huge annual membership fees and would not be able to quit the trade union.
The company claims that if employees terminate their union membership the law states that the company should fire the employees. However, there is no law that requires companies to fire employees who terminate their union membership. This is because the union and the employer are different entities.
According to the existing labor regulations, it is wrong for a company to deny people employment due to union membership. However, Eat Right declined to offer employment to Sandra Coulis’ friend since she had previously worked in a unionized store. The top management of the company instructed the assistant store manager not to hire any prospective employee who had previously worked in a unionized store.
It is wrong for a company to dismiss or offer a threat of dismissal to any employee due to the employee’s involvement in a trade union. However, Eat Right violated this requirement consistently. The company fired Sandra Coulis due to her insistence of unionizing the company.
During an earlier incident when Coulis the alarm went on for 45 minutes, the HR adviser of the company advised the store manager not to fire Coulis. According the adviser the store manager should provide Coulis with a six months’ notice before firing her. However, the store manager did not provide Coulis with a notice when he finally fired her. In addition, it is evident that the management of the company was becoming restless due to Coulis’ insistence on unionizing the company.
One of the employees attended a meeting in store manager’s office where she was asked several questions regarding the campaign to unionize the company. The regional manager, a high profile executive of the company, was present during the meeting. Therefore, it is evident that the top management of the company objects the unionization of the company.
The company fired Coulis was due to her involvement in efforts to unionize the company. Going for a drink during overtime hours – which are unpaid – does not warrant the company to fire Coulis. The deli manager refers to Coulis’ dismissal in threatening other employees not to join a union.
Therefore, the Retail Workers Union should sue Eat Right. The company uses threats and coercions to discourage its employees from joining a trade union. The company fires Coulis due to her involvement in trade union activities. In addition, the company denies people employment positions due to involvement in trade unions.
Response of the HR manager to union complaints
Since it is evident that the company may face complaints from the labor unions, it is vital to be prepared to face any accusations. Eat Right ensures that it caters of the needs of its employees. The company offers a favorable remuneration package to all employees. Previously the company used to pay its employees for any overtime work.
However, employees of the company have abused this company policy. Employees do their work slowly so that they may extend the duration of their work. This would enable them to get overtime payment. This is the major reason that made the company refuse to pay for overtime during emergencies only. In addition, cashiers of the company are not efficient in their jobs.
This makes them make many errors, which ultimately affect the financial position of the company. Therefore, it is vital for the cashiers to improve their efficiency. Checking and verifying the cash account of accounting clerks at the end of each day is one of the major methods of improving their efficiency.
It is wrong for employees to engage in solicitation activities during working hours. Solicitation involves recruitment or convincing employees of the company to join trade unions. This is because solicitation distracts employees. Various companies prohibit solicitation within the companies’ premises (Lawson, 1998).
This policy applies to both employees of the company and outsiders. Eat Right strives to improve its performance. Therefore, it is vital for employees or other people to desist from engaging in solicitation activities during working hours. Employees who would like to engage in solicitation activities should do so outside the company’s premises.
However, some employees of Eat Right take were taking part in solicitation activities within the company’s premises. Sandra Coulis is one of the major employees who was taking part in solicitation activities. This may adversely affect her efficiency. Solicitation during working hours is the major factor that leads to conflict between Coulis and Max White, the store manager. White prefers strict adherence to employment duties during working hours.
Companies should ensure that they provide guidance on how to an employee’s work is not satisfactory prior to taking any disciplinary actions. It is vital for employers to ensure that the employees understand the seriousness of the situation (Silver, 2001). White fired Coulis, as she was not taking her job seriously. During one occasion, Coulis had an extended break that made the alarm go off for 45 minutes.
This forced White to issue a warning letter to Coulis. The warning letter stated that if she did not improve her behavior, the company would impose further disciplinary action. Coulis repeated the same mistake. This made White exercise his power and fire Coulis. This does not contravene the existing labor regulations.
The company may dispute the statements made by the deli manager to his employees. The deli manager told employees that the company would fire them if they engaged in union activities. The company may dispute this since the deli manager is not responsible for firing employees. The store manager is the only individual who may communicate the position of the company with regard to union activities.
References
Lawson, J.W.R. (1998). How to develop an employee handbook. New York: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
Silver, I. (2001). Public employee discharge and discipline, Volume 1. New York: Aspen Publishers.