In a Word document answer the 3 questions listed after the following Mini Case-
ID: 337384 • 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 Mexico Violate U.S. Labor Law? BACKGROUND Southwest Propane Transport, Inc., was a U.s. company that transported propane from Arizona, Texas, New Mex Two of the most vocal union supporters were drv Maria Meraz and Rogelio Delgado. During this perice campaigning. Meraz and Delgado had several conve ico, and California to customer distribution sites in Mex sations with Gabriel Acosta. Acosta frequently assigned them 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 drivers were U.S. citizens, the majority of their working time was spent in the United States, and they were clearly the employees of a U.S. company (Southwest Propane Trans- port, hereafter called SPT). routes to the truck drivers and could discipline other words, he was seen by the SPT drivers as a super visor. Acosta indicated that the drivers would get a raise they voted against the union, and they would be showed the door" if they voted the union in. Moreover, Acosta told Meraz and Delgado that after they were "showed the door" he would be sure to badmouth them to other gas companies so they could not get new jobs. ers were allowed to sell whatever diesel fuel was left over from their runs. This For several years the SPT truck driv QUESTIONS 1. As a review of earlier chapters, explain how Acosta's 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 with the safety of the trucks; their frustrations were magni- fied by this abrupt cut in their compensation, and they col- 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 in the upcoming election actions violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA 2. Interestingly, the conversaticns between Acosta, Meraz and Delgado occurred at the Nogales distribution center in Mexico, not in the Snited States. Moreover, Acosta was a Mexican citizen who worked in Mexico for a Mexican company. Accsta was not employed by SPT but instead worked for SPT's fnejor customer in Mexico. Nevertheless, Acosta frequently assigned routes to the truck drivers for their return to the United States and sometimes discipined them. He was seen by the SPT 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)? Did Acosta's actions violate any human rights stan- dards? If so, should there be any consequences or remedies for this violation? 3.Explanation / Answer
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 Mexico Violate U.S. Labor Law? BACKGROUND Southwest Propane Transport, Inc., was a U.s. company that transported propane from Arizona, Texas, New Mex Two of the most vocal union supporters were drv Maria Meraz and Rogelio Delgado. During this perice campaigning. Meraz and Delgado had several conve ico, and California to customer distribution sites in Mex sations with Gabriel Acosta. Acosta frequently assigned them 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 drivers were U.S. citizens, the majority of their working time was spent in the United States, and they were clearly the employees of a U.S. company (Southwest Propane Trans- port, hereafter called SPT). routes to the truck drivers and could discipline other words, he was seen by the SPT drivers as a super visor. Acosta indicated that the drivers would get a raise they voted against the union, and they would be showed the door" if they voted the union in. Moreover, Acosta told Meraz and Delgado that after they were "showed the door" he would be sure to badmouth them to other gas companies so they could not get new jobs. ers were allowed to sell whatever diesel fuel was left over from their runs. This For several years the SPT truck driv QUESTIONS 1. As a review of earlier chapters, explain how Acosta's 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 with the safety of the trucks; their frustrations were magni- fied by this abrupt cut in their compensation, and they col- 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 in the upcoming election actions violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA 2. Interestingly, the conversaticns between Acosta, Meraz and Delgado occurred at the Nogales distribution center in Mexico, not in the Snited States. Moreover, Acosta was a Mexican citizen who worked in Mexico for a Mexican company. Accsta was not employed by SPT but instead worked for SPT's fnejor customer in Mexico. Nevertheless, Acosta frequently assigned routes to the truck drivers for their return to the United States and sometimes discipined them. He was seen by the SPT 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)? Did Acosta's actions violate any human rights stan- dards? If so, should there be any consequences or remedies for this violation? 3.