IRAC SUMMARY
Case 1: 1. Hartman Bros. Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. NLRB, 280 F.3d 1110 (7th Cir. 2002)
Issue
Provision of false statement- within this case, it was stated that Salt who was seeking employment could not be discriminated for his salting activities. Because of that there was no reason for firing him because of the false information he had provided(2000 NLRB 2).
Rule
Labor law- according to this law, salting is when trade union ends up inserting an organizer into the workforce with the objective that he will be in the position of organizing the workforce(2000 NLRB 2).
Analysis
Within this case, once salt was sent into the heating and the air-conditioning company, he was later fired after the company discovered that he was a salt. Although the raised its complaints to the NLRB, the management authority of the company appealed it because of the false employment information provided. Therefore, the court ruled that an employee cannot be discriminated against salts (2000 NLRB 2).
Conclusion
Despite the fact that the employee had lied, it is illegal for a worker to make false statements so as to obtain employment.
Case 2: Stericycle, Inc., 357 N.L.R.B. No. 61 (Aug. 23, 2011)
Issue
In the Stericycle, Inc., the union had filed an election petition which the objective of representing the dispatching employees. This was because the employees had violated the provision of the federal fair labor standards act (FLSA) (357 N.L.R.B. No.1).
Rule
According to the federal fair labor standards act (FLSA) and state law, the board ended up overruling the preceding law governing the union sponsored lawsuit which was filled the critical period (357 N.L.R.B. No.2).
Analysis
Through the application of this rule, the court approved that the election ought to be set aside as well as holding new election after ensuring that all employees are explicitly notified about it (357 N.L.R.B. No.3). On the other hand, it means that the time taken should have the capacity of clarifying the mandates offered. In the process, it means that the onion which files the hour and the wage on behalf of the workers ought to commensurate with the statutes set. Conversely, during the critical pre-election time, it is important for the management authority to ensure that the exercise is conducted legally so as to make each employee inclusive.
Conclusion
As far as this case is concerned, the court ruled out that it is important for the management authority to ensure that union-sponsored lawsuits have been effectively filled during the critical period. Furthermore, it is clear that the legal pursuit provided by the new law ought to have the capacity of redressing the filling of election petition before and after the election process have taken place. This should also coincide with the critical period the parties could have chosen regardless of the motives the representatives of employees would be having (357 N.L.R.B. No.6).
