sident, Jack Kramer, and the other members of the board. The lack of a company paid insurance program and the lower salary scale had led many of the bank’s employees to explore what the advantages might be with union representation. As a result, Kramer was now facing the possibility of the IMU being the collective bargaining agent for his workers.Management was flabbergasted to learn that there were enough employees to warrant an election. Initially, in fact, the bank did not take the actions of some of the employees seriously until it was almost too late. To combat the reality of the situation First Central’s officers began taking measures to prevent the infiltration of the union. In trying to do so the question arises whether or not the bank violated any legal statutes. Also, it must be explored whether or not the IMU violated any laws or rules in trying to push to unionize the employees. Did both sides abide by the fair labor practices dictated by the National Labor Relations Act and the Taft-Hartley Act? Was the electioneering tactics of each consistent within the free speech rights specified in the First Amendment?Prior to 1929, business executives were seen as leaders and union members were considered dangerous radicals. However, this changed when Americans saw that these businesses could not beat out the depression and they started to favor the union. Then in 1932, the Norris-LaGuardia Act was passed in favor of labor unions. This act protected unions by decreasing management’s ability to obtain a court injunction to stop union activities. Before the passing of this act, employers could easily get an injunction to stop strikes, picketing, and membership drives. In addition, the Norris-LaGuardia Act also guaranteed each employee the right to bargain collectively free from interference, restraint, or coercion.Continuing through the 1930’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, another act was passed in...
