Teamsters Local Union V National Labor Relations

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION V NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 4

TeamstersLocal Union V National Labor Relations

TeamstersLocal Union V National Labor Relations

Mr.Rammage worked in Dolly Madison as a sales agent in Ponca City for aperiod of fifteen years. This was before the employer decided toconsolidate the company’s distribution operations. Mr. Rammage hadnever been a member of the Union. In any case, he was not under theHostess/Wonder or Dolly Madison Bread Bargaining Units. At the pointwhen the Employer told the Union about Mr. Rammage`s productivityadding that that he was not represented by any of the two bargainingunits, they (union and Employer) concurred that he ought to join theconsolidated unit under Hostess/Wonder Bread contract.

Evidently,they differed about Mr. Rammage`s status concerning his rank. Mr.Rammage had been an employee in Ponca City for a longer periodcompared to other workers. Additionally, the Employer considered himhis best representative in Ponca City. Thus, the Employer considereddovetailing him in the merged unit as per his years of work insteadof his years of membership in the Union (Bowman, 2002).

However,the Union opposed this suggestion claiming that it would go againstits obligation of reasonable representation to the representativeswho were at that point in one of the two different sales units if itconsented to grant Mr. Rammage the rank the Employer wanted to granthim. Additionally, the Union demanded that Mr. Rammage be put at thelowest rank and start from there as stated by the terms andconditions of the union. Eventually, the Employer submitted to theUnion`s order and end-tailed Mr. Rammage (Meiners et al., 2012).

Mr.Roberts expressed verbally that Mr. Rammage was relegated reasonbeing he was not a member of the union. Eventually, the Employerproposed to Mr. Rammage a post in Bartlesville. Moreover, one of hissupervisor, Kirk Summers, continuously advised him to apply for theunion’s membership. Mr. Summers likewise expressed that Mr. Rammagewas posted to another location since he was not a member of the union(National Labor Relations Board, 2005). Mr. Rammage inevitablyacknowledged the Bartlesville position obliges him to cover a dailydistance of more than 70 miles (McCulloch &amp Bornstein, 2007).

Inconclusion, the NLRB presumed that in the setting of a unit merger,the employer was forced to consent with the union’s issue since anemployer and a union are not legally allowed to dovetail thesuperiority of represented workers while endtailing previouslyunrepresented workers. This decision reflects a sensible applicationof the lawful standards and the NLRA. In reality, the Union`s demandon Mr. Rammage`s demotion affected the Employer`s previous consent.Additionally, its announcements that Mr. Rammage was relegated sincehe was not a part of the union victimized him. However, the uniondiscrimination against Mr. Rammage was to encourage “unionmembership” (United States., Bureau of National Affairs (Arlington,Va.) &amp United States, 2005).

References

Bowman,D. O. (2002). Publiccontrol of labor relations: A study of the National labor relationsboard.New York: Macmillan Co.

Meiners,R. E., Ringleb, A. H., &amp Edwards, F. L. (2012). The legalenvironment of business. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

McCulloch,F. W., &amp Bornstein, T. (2007). TheNational Labor Relations Board.New York: Praeger Publishers.

NationalLabor Relations Board (U S) (2005). Decisionsand Orders of the National Labor Relations Board.Government Printing Office

UnitedStates., Bureau of National Affairs (Arlington, Va.), &amp UnitedStates. (2005). Laborrelations reference manual: The law of labor relations includingstatutes, opinions of the courts, and decisions of the National LaborRelations Board.Washington, D.C: Bureau of National Affairs.