Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Employees rights
First Decision: The National Labor Relations Board decision and order of the Respondents, Domsey Trading Corporation, Domsey Fiber Corporation, and Domsey International Sales Corporation ("Domsey"), a single employer and Arthur Salm and Fortuna Edery and the Discriminates International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union, formally request the return of previously striking employees. Domsey wholesale used clothing from its warehouse in Brooklyn, New York. On January 30, 1990, around 200 of Domsey's employees joined among the Union went on strike, claiming that the corporation had committed unjust labor practices, including firing some employees for attending union assembly’s. They charged that Domsey had entrusted unfair labor practices and stipulated that Domsey recognize the Union. The Union's primary claim was that the workers had been disciplined or fired for attending Union meetings. The Board ordered the Respondent to offer reinstatement to the former strikes and make them whole for their losses, and owed over $1 million, plus interest, in back pay to the discriminate’s. In the meantime, the Domsey closed down its business at its main place of commerce and subsequently sold its belongings. No provision was prepared to set aside resources to satisfy the Board’s claim as a creditor for back pay owed the discriminate’s. (NLRB, 2011, December 30).
Second Decision: The National Labor Relations Board decision and order of Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC (OHL) and the discriminates United Steel Workers Union. OHL an operator of Memphis distribution warehouses, to take steps to remedy unfair labor practices. The labor board backed an administrative law judge's ruling, which concluded in part that managers improperly threatened employees...
... middle of paper ...
.... Weekly Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of January 9-13,2011: Domsey Trading Corporation, Domsey Fiber Corporation and Domsey International Sales, Broklyn, NY. National Labor Relations Board. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from http://www.nlrb.gov/weeklysummary/summary-nlrb-decisions-week-january-9-13-2012
NLRB (2011, December 8). Weekly Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of December 12-16, 2011: Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC, Memphis, TN. National Labor Relations Board. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from http://www.nlrb.gov/weeklysummary/summary-nlrb-decisions-week-december-12-16-2011
Practical Law Company, Inc. (2012, January 17). Corporate Veil May be Pierced For a Single Corporate Transaction Arguably After a Corporation Ceased Operating: NLRB. Practical Law Company. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://us.practicallaw.com/5-517-1975?q=&qp=&qo=&qe=#null
EEOC v. Consolidated Service System, 989 F.2d 233 (Cir. 1993), as cited by Bennett-Alexander, D.D. and Hartman, L. P. (2014) at 195.
Throughout her article, “I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave,” reporter Mac McClelland refers to her employer as some rendition of “Amalgamated Product Giant Shipping Worldwide Inc” (394). She justifies the use of this nickname by explaining how “to do otherwise might give people the impression that these conditions apply only to one warehouse or one company. Which they don’t” (395). McClelland utilizes her legal liability to make her experience apply across the nation, instead of only in the one particular warehouse she describes. While it is clever, it leaves me curious as to exactly which and how many companies participate in the indecent employee treatment she unveils. The generalizing statement poses the danger of condemning potentially innocent
The Tucker vs. Walgreen Company was a nationwide known class action case. It fell into the category of race discrimination. This cases was brought to the attention of the law by African Americans who were employed at this retail and pharmacy store. This pledged that they were being discriminated to by the following acts:failure to move up in positions (promotion), dieing them the opportunity to apply for assistant manager and manager, and being assigned to an undesirable store for an extended period of time compared to whites. They filed a class action lawsuit with the demand of compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Along with these demands, the plaintiffs desired class certification for those who have been previously affected by the defendant’s discriminatory acts as well as any who will suffer from them in the future.
Tensions between union supporters and management began mounting in the years preceding the strike. In April of 1994, the International Union led a three-week strike against major tracking companies in the freight hauling industry in attempts to stop management from creating $9 per hour part-time positions. This would only foreshadow battles to come between management and union. Later, in 1995, teamsters mounted an unprecedented national union campaign in attempts to defeat the labor-management “cooperation” scheme that UPS management tried to establish in order to weaken the union before contract talks (Witt, Wilson). This strike was distinguished from other strikes of recent years in that it was an offensive strike, not a defensive one. It was a struggle in which the union was prepared, fought over issues which it defined, and one which relied overwhelmingly on the efforts of the members themselves (http://www.igc.org/dbacon/Strikes/07ups.htm).
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
against their employers, employees were able to go on strike and prove a point. Some
David Dunlap, a 52-year old African American male with 25 year boilermaker experience, 15 years of which include foreman experience, brought suit under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination by the TVA after being looked over after interviewing for positions within the TVA. The district court agreed that “Dunlap had been subjected to discrimination under both disparate treatment and disparate impact analyses, concluding that TVA’s subjective hiring processes permitted racial bias against both Dunlap and other black applicants” (Walsh, 2010). The case was heard by the 6th District Court of Appeals and that court “affirmed the disparate treatment claim, reversed the disparate impact claim, and affirmed the district court’s award of damages and fees to Mr. Dunlap” (Walsh, ...
5. Bronfenbrenner, Kate. Final Report : The Effects of Plant Closing or Threat of Plant Closing on the Right of Workers to Organize, Submitted to the North American Commission for Labor Cooperation, September 30, 1996.
Lichenstein, N. (2007) Why Working at Walmart is Different Connecticut Law Review, Volume 39 Number 4, May 2007
and Answers, Map of the RFRA). Employment Division v. Smith was a court case in
Timeline. AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations. 6 November 2004 .
Bennett-Alexander, D.; Hartman, L (2012) Employment Law for Business 7th Edition. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
In the case of Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (Dukes), the court found that there was a lack of significant proof that Wal-Mart had a general policy of discrimination (Schipani, 2013). The plaintiffs needed commonality to establish uniformed disparity within the Wal-Mart organization, and statistical evidence was deemed unworthy of proving this commonality (Schipani, 2013). The numbers were astounding; seventy-two percent of the hourly workforce of Wal-Mart are women, yet only 10% are store managers, and a mere 4% of female Wal-Mart employees are district managers (Bernardin & Russell, 2013). The numbers seem to reflect a painfully obvious presence of discrimination, and with Wal-Mart’s market power within its industry, it can be frightening to evaluate the impact their practices have on the American employment culture.
United States of America. National Employment Law Project. National Employment Law Project. N.p., Jan. 2011. Web. 18 May 2014.
Employee stakeholders have another story. The discrimination lawsuits ranging from female employees not getting equal pay or equal positions, to disabled employees, class-action lawsuits stating that Wal-Mart doctors questionnaires to prevent disabled workers from applying, Wal-Mart does not rank very high with these employees. Lawsuits stemming from Wal-Mart’s failure to monitor labor conditions at oversea factories and hires illegal immigrants add to the rift in relations between the employees and the company. Wal-Mart continues to deny charges...