Unit 2 Assignment: Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB

Attached Files:

 Unit2Assignment_Instructions&Rubric (241.062 KB)

Read Case 5.10, on page 177 of our textbook. Then answer the following three questions provided at the end of the case study:

1. What company action caused this complaint?
2. What remedy did the Board order?
3. With this decision, did the Supreme Court expand the scope of mandatory bargaining to include all subcontracting situations?

Each question should be included with the answer.  Each question should have an answer of 250-words or more in length.  Your submission should be APA formatted (including a cover page, headings, and in-text citations) and professionally presented in proper academic tone. 

See attached rubric for grading criteria and please post any questions in the Ask the Instructor forum.   Submit your completed assignment to the above submission link by 11:59 p.m. EST, Sunday of Unit 2.

Unit2 Assignment: Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB

Due Date: 11:59 pm Sunday of Unit 2
Total Points: 100

Overview:

For our first assignment, we will focus on explaining the concept of mandatory bargaining and
the duties of employers. In this case study, you will explore the role of the Supreme Court and
what actions caused this complaint in the first place.

Instructions:

Refer to case study 5.10 – Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB on page 177 of your
textbook. Then answer the following three questions provided at the end of the case study:

1. What company action caused this complaint?

2. What remedy did the Board order?

3. With this decision, did the Supreme Court expand the scope of mandatory bargaining to
include all subcontracting situations?

Requirements:

 Be sure to read the assignment instructions and rubric carefully before beginning.

 Use full sentences and appropriate academic language in all work.

 Use Microsoft Word to complete the assignment.

 Follow standard APA guidelines (proper margins, double-spaced, Times New Roman

font, and 12-point font)

 Use APA citation format and include a reference/work cited page when necessary.

 Each question should have an answer of 250-words or more in length.

 Include an introduction and conclusion.

 Label cover page of all assignments with your full name, course title, and date.

Be sure to read the criteria, by which your paper/project will be evaluated,
before you write, and again after you write. Response to questions #1-#3 will
be evaluated at a maximum of 25 points each question based on the rubric

below.

HRM341
Employment Law

Evaluation Rubric for Unit 2 Assignment

CRITERIA Deficient Proficient Exemplary

(0 – 2 Points) (3 – 4 Points) (5 Points)

Introduction Does not provide an
adequate introduction or

is missing.

Introduction is
presented, though
may not be clear or

complete.

Introduction is clearly
presented and provides
the reader a context for
the rest of the response.

(0 – 16 Points) (17 – 21 Points) (22 – 25 Points)

Question #1
Response

Did not highlight a
company action that

caused this complaint.
Did not provide an

adequate response –
less than 200

words.

Did highlight a
company action that

caused this complaint.
Did not provide an

adequate response –
between 201-249

words.

Clearly highlighted a
company action that

caused this complaint.
Provided a more than

accurate response – 250
words or more.

Question #2
Response

Did not highlight the
remedy that the Board

ordered. Did not
provide an adequate
response – less than

200 words.

Did highlight the
remedy that the Board

ordered. Did not

provide an adequate
response – between

201-249 words.

Clearly highlighted the
remedy that the Board
ordered. Provided a
more than accurate

response – 250 words or
more.

Question #3
Response

Did not answer the
question or did not

explain why or why not.
Did not provide an

adequate response –
less than 200 words.

Answered the
question. Did not

provide an adequate
response – between
201-249 words.

Answered the question.
Provided a more than

accurate response – 250
words or more.

(0 – 5 Points) (6 – 8 Points) (9 – 10 Points)

Assignment
Requirements

References and
citations missing or
formatting does not

resemble APA.

References and
citations are present

with some errors.

References and citations
are present and near

perfect.

Clear and
professional
writing and
format

Errors impede
professional

presentation; guidelines
not followed.

Few errors that do not
impede professional

presentation.

Writing and format is
clear, professional, and

error free.

CASE 5.10 FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORP. V. NLRB SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 203 (1964).

[After receiving union proposals for contract revisions for the benefit of the maintenance workers at the company’s Emeryville, California, plant, the company advised the union that negotiations for a new contract would be pointless because it had definitely decided to contract out the work performed by the employees covered by the agreement upon the expiration of the agreement. The company planned to replace these employees with an independent contractor’s employees and expected that substantial savings would be effected by this contracting-out of the work. The Board ordered the company to reinstate the maintenance operation with the union employees, reinstate the employees with back pay, and fulfill its statutory bargaining obligation. The court of appeals granted the Board’s enforcement petition, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.]

WARREN, C. J…. I. Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer “to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees.” Collective bar- gaining is defined in Section 8(d)

as the performance of the mutual obligation of the employer and the representative of the employees to meet at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.

“Read together, these provisions establish the obligation of the employer and the representative of its employees to bargain with each other in good faith with respect to ‘wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment….’ The duty is limited to those subjects, and within that area neither is legally obligated to yield. Labor Board v. American Ins. Co., 343 U.S. 395. As to other matters, however, each party is free to bargain or not to bargain….” Labor Board v. Wooster Div. of Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342, 349. Because of the limited grant of certiorari, we are concerned here only with whether the subject upon which the employer allegedly refused to bargain— contracting out of plant maintenance work previously performed by employees in the bargaining unit, which the employees were capable of continuing to perform—is covered by the phrase “terms and conditions of employment” within the meaning of Section 8(d).

The subject matter of the present dispute is well within the literal meaning of the phrase “terms and conditions of employment.”

As the Court of Appeals pointed out, it is not necessary that it be likely or probable that the union will yield or supply a feasible solution but rather that the union be afforded an opportunity to meet management’s legitimate complaints that its maintenance was unduly costly.

We are thus not expanding the scope of mandatory bargaining to hold, as we do now, that the type of “contracting out” involved in this case—the replacement of employees in the existing bargaining unit with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment—is a statutory subject of collective bar- gaining under Section 8(d). Our decision need not and does not encompass other forms of “contracting out” or “subcontracting” which arise daily in our complex economy…. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Case Questions

1.

What company action caused this complaint?

2. What remedy did the Board order?

3. With this decision, did the Supreme Court expand the scope of mandatory bargaining to include all subcontracting situations?