Electromation V. Llrb Case Study

Electromation, Inc. v. NLRB
“There is certainly something wrong with that form of unionism…whose leaders are the lieutenants of capitalism” (Debs, 1905, para. 6). The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) enforces and modifies the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to allow employees to have a voice against their employers. Action committees, labor organizations, and union representation are methods for employees to gather, voice concerns, and present recommendations to the employer as a united front. Employers who interfere with those rights face the NLRB and violations of the NLRA. In the case of Electromation, Incorporated v. NLRB, Electromation, Inc. put itself in a compromising position but claimed the intentions were good.
The Case
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) George McInerny found Electromation, Inc. guilty of “unfair labor practice charge under Section 8(a)(2) [and (1)] of the NLRA” (Hogler, 1993, p. 261). Electromation, Inc. is guilty of forming and interfering in labor organizations disguised as action committees. The five action committee subjects were: absenteeism/infractions, no-smoking policy, communication network, pay progression for premium positions, and attendance bonus program (Reed & Bogardus, 2012, p. 560).
During the company’s 1988

denied the allegations of the NLRB stating the organization’s intentions were not to interfere or dominate in the congregation of labor organizations. The intentions may not have been there, but the acts of limiting personnel to each committee and supporting the committees were violations. Electromation, Inc. also claimed they did not realize employees were considering union organization until the union demanded recognition by the president of the company. Although the claim may be true, Reed and Bogardus (2012) elucidate the petition with 68 signatures should have been an indication to the employer of possible union organization and eliminated company involvement at that