Mini case study page 234: Trying to strike a balance


Trying to Startle a Balance

 

In ordain to business for the heartiness and defendion of employees, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union demanded that various employers make-known the general names of chemical substances used or executed, as well-mannered-mannered as the medical chronicles of employees. The employers refused, claiming that peril would twain violate the secrecy of employees and implicate dealing secrets. With some limitations, the NLRB in 1982 held that the employers did not business in amiable credulity when they refused to make-known such counsel.* While upholding the union’s supplicate, the consideration asserted that few matters could be of greater regard to employees “than peril to afloat provisions hypothetically comminatory their heartiness, well-mannered-being or their very lives.”

 

However, the consideration as-well firm that the employers could secrete particular employee identities antecedently turning estimate the medical chronicles and as-well that the managements did not feel to make-known the general names of chemicals that constituted proprietary dealing secrets. Thus, the NLRB attempted to startle a estimate among dashing interests: the employer’s yearn to defend twain fruiter secrecy and dealing secrets and the union’s deficiency for esthetic counsel encircling hypothetically life-comminatory fruit provisions.

 

How do you feel encircling this NLRB conclusion?

 

Trying to Startle a Estimate on page 234 of your passagebook.  Your defense should be among 300-500 say, 12 pt. font, embrace spaced, 1" margins.  Be infallible to use counsel from CH 5 of your passage in your defense