In a Word document answer the 3 questions listed after the following Mini Case-
ID: 334450 • Letter: I
Question
In a Word document answer the 3 questions listed after the following Mini Case- Chapter 11- Mini Case page 414- "Do Threats in Mexico Violate U.S. Labor Law?"
Labor Law Discussion Case 10: Do Threats in Me Violate U.S. Labor Law? OOKKEEPING supporters were Delgado had several routes to the truck drivers and cly a Two of the most vocal union su nd Rogelio Delgado. During Delgado. During campaigning. Meraz and De sations with Gabriel Acosta, A Southwest Propane Transport, Inc., was a U.S. company that transported propane from Arizona, Texas, New Mex- ico, and California to customer distribution sites in Mex- ico. Its main employees were therefore truck drivers who drove propane from these southwestern states to cities in Mexico such as Tijuana, Nogales, and Juarez. These truck sta frequently assignes uld discipline them, BACKGROUND words, he was seen by the SPT driv other isor. Acosta indicated that the drivers w they voted against the union, and the the door" if they voted the unio told Meraz and Delgado that after th door," he would be sure to badmouth them to companies as a super. and they would be show would get a in. Moreover hey were "showed the the majority of their working time was spent in the United States, and they were clearly the U.S. company (Southwest Propane Trans- drivers were U.S. citizens, employees of a port, hereafter called SPT) so they could not get new jobs. For several years the SPT truck drivers were allowed to sell whatever diesel fuel was left over from their runs. This typically amounted to between $50 and $100 per week and the drivers viewed this as meal money. In fact, when some employees asked for meal money, they were told that if they wanted something to eat, they should watch their fuel consumption and sell the extra to buy something to eat. But when a new operations manager, Oscar Silva took over, he stopped the practice of allowing drivers to sell their extra fuel. The drivers were already concerned QUESTIONS 1. As a review of earlier chapters, explain h how Acosta's Act (NLR red at the Nogales distribution actions violated the National Labor Relations 2. Interestingly, the conversations betw and Delgado occur center in Mexico, not in the United States. More Acosta was a Mexican citizen who work a Mexican company. Acosta was not employed but instead worked for SPT's major customer in Mex Nevertheless, Acosta frequently assigned routes to the in Mexico for were magni ith the safety of the trucks; their frustrations fied by this abrupt cut in their compensation, and they co for their return to the United States and lectively went to talk with Silva about these issues. When he refused to listen to their concerns, the Arizona-based truck drivers talked with a union organizer. Shortly there- after the union received signed authorization cards from 16 of the 19 Arizona-based drivers and filed a petition with the NLRB for a representation election. During the elec tion campaign, SPT had numerous small group meetings to try to convince the employees not to vote for the union k drivers ometimes disciplined them. He was seen by the SP drivers not only as a supervisor but as the voice and authority of SPT in Mexico. In Silva's words, Acosta was his "eyes and ears" in Nogales. Do you still think Acos ta'a actions violated American labor law (the NLRA)? 3. Did Acosta's actions violate any human rights stan- dards? If so, should there be any consequences on remedies for this violation? n the upcoming electionExplanation / Answer
Answer 1:
Acosta’s action: Acosta being the supervisor of the SPT (Southwest Propane Transport) Company, instructed their drives that if they vote against the union they will get a raise in their compensation and if they vote in favor of union, then they will be terminated from the job and they will create situations which will not let them to get new job easily.
National Labor Relation Act: This act is manly to protect the rights of employees and employers. This act encourages the collective bargaining and this restricts the private sector labor and management practices which can have adverse impact and can harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and finally the US economy. Thus this law protects the harm to US economy, businesses and workers and protects their interests.
Violation by Acosta’s Action: As stated above the Acosta’s action is not ethical and appropriate action against the workers of SPT. The Acosta cannot initiate the right of the workers to vote for union in order to protect worker’s interest and discrimination by the SPT Company. The SPT Company can have both ethical processes and system, so that driver workers are adequately paid for their services and their welfares are taken care to the extent possible for the SPT Company.
As per the National Labor Relation Act, employees, employers are encouraged for collective bargaining for their welfares and their common interests. But Acosta restrict this act by putting his non-ethical conditions. The act of not letting them to get new job is a worst thinking and planning by a company supervisor against the workers. This comes under high level of non-ethical management actions. Acosta can have severe legal penalties and charges for this unethical and non-legal act with the workers of SPT.