is case, the bank did not supply a list, mainly because the union was able to secure a list of employees early on in the recruitment process.From the reading it was evident that the electioneering tactics of each side was consistent within the free speech rights specified in the First Amendment. It is determined that the bank did not violate any labor laws in it’s efforts to prevent unionization of the employees. It is also determined that the IMU did not violate any laws rules in trying to push to unionize the employees. There was no major confrontations and for the most part the hole process was uneventful. What we are left with then is examining whether the fair labor practices were infringed upon by either party.An employer may not disrupt the efforts of a union organizer. There is no evidence in this case to charge First Central with doing such. Employers may not disrupt employee efforts to undertake collective bargaining. The bank may have been guilty of this unfair labor practice when it confiscated the original membership cards that were found by a security guard one Sunday morning. An employer may not treat union workers differently in any way from workers not supporting the union. Union supporters cannot be fired or disciplined for their union efforts or support. An employer cannot penalize any employee for engaging in any lawful activity. In this regard the bank is to be commended because it did not fire or discipline Esther Jones and the other two union supporters that were recruiting on company time. Also it did not fire or discipline the three assistant auditors for unionizing activities. Even though Attorney Smith pushed for discharge, President Kramer held firm and said that no disciplinary action would be taken.After the bank became convinced that they were facing a serious unionization threat it was decided to engage in an aggressive “information and education” campaign. First Central was within their...
