Business Law Study Set 14

Business

Quiz 34 :

Employment, Immigration, and Labor Law

Quiz 34 :

Employment, Immigration, and Labor Law

Question Type
search
arrow
Unemployment Insurance Mary Garas, a chemist, sought work in Missouri through Kelly Services, Inc. Kelly is a staffing agency that places individuals in jobs of varying duration with other companies. Through Kelly, Garas worked at Merial Co. from April 2005 to February 2006. After the assignment ended, Garas asked Kelly for more work. Meanwhile, she filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Missouri Division of Employment Security (DES). In March, Kelly recruiter Rebecca Cockrum told Garas about a temporary assignment with Celsis Laboratory. Garas said that she would prefer a "more stable position," but later asked Cockrum to submit her résumé to Celsis. Before the employer responded, Kelly told the DES that Garas had refused suitable work. Under a Missouri state statute, a claim for unemployment benefits must be denied if "the claimant failed without good cause … to accept suitable work when offered the claimant … by an employer by whom the individual was formerly employed." The DES denied Garas's claim for benefits. She filed an appeal with a state court. Was the DES's denial right or wrong Why [ Garas v. Kelly Services, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 149 (Mo. App.E.D. 2007)]
Free
Essay
Answer:

Answer:

Most likely, the court will find the denial premature and wrongful.
The statute requires that the claimant turn down suitable work. However, in this case, G was merely told by a recruiter about a possible offer and the submission of her resume. This was not a job offer. It was merely an invitation to apply. If G had actually been offered a job with the company, there would be a stronger argument that she rejected a suitable offer.
Because there was no job offer, G cannot be found to have rejected suitable work.

Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Unfair Labor Practices Consolidated Stores is undergoing a unionization campaign. Prior to the union election, management states that the union is unnecessary to protect workers. Management also provides bonuses and wage increases to the workers during this period. The employees reject the union. Union organizers protest that the wage increases during the election campaign unfairly prejudiced the vote. Should these wage increases be regarded as an unfair labor practice Discuss.
Free
Essay
Answer:

Answer:

The case deals with the unfair labor practices in consolidated stores, which are going to establish union campaign. Management states that establishing unions would make no use to protect workers.
Unfair labor practices:
These are unfair acts those arise in between employer and employee at the work place. These practices refer to certain actions taken by employers that violate National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
An employer is allowed to have control over union activities those take place on company's purpose. The employer must be able to demonstrate the advantages of not forming unions, and can create campaigns against union.
The demonstration of an employer would be as below:
• An organization gives bonuses and increases the wages on a general course. This would be carried out as performance appraisal to appreciate the high performance workers.
• The rise in the wages is unrelated to form unions.

Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Unfair Labor Practices The Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 578, and Shaw Stone Webster Construction, Inc., were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that covered workers at the company. The agreement contained a union-security provision that required all company employees who were represented by the union to join the union. If an employee failed to join or pay union dues, the union would request that the employee be fired. After Sebedeo Lopez went to work for Shaw Stone, he failed to pay his union initiation fee and monthly dues. Lopez's shop steward told him to pay these fees, although the amount owed was unclear. He was also told that the union was pressing the company to fire him. Lopez agreed to pay the fees and left a money order for $200 at the union's office, but the union claimed that it did not find the money order. Lopez promised to pay another $215 in a few days, but the union demanded his immediate dismissal. Shaw Stone fired him on the spot. Lopez complained to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which brought unfair labor practice charges against the union. An administrative law judge ruled against the union, and the NLRB agreed. The union appealed. Was the union guilty of unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act by having Lopez fired Why or why not [ Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 578 v. National Labor Relations Board , 594 F.3d 732 (10th Cir. 2010)]
Free
Essay
Answer:

Answer:

Analysis whether there is a guilty of unfair labor practices under the National Labor Regulations Act by Lopez fired or not:
A union can be guilty of unfair labor practices under several circumstances, including when the union restraints or coerces an employee to participate in union activities or when the union discriminates against non-union employees.
A union can compel workers to pay dues for be in a union, but cannot require a worker to join a union if they do not want to, as in this case. In addition, excessive dues are illegal.
In this case, the union attempted to coerce employees to join the union under a threat of being fired. The union was essentially requiring employees to join the union. Thus, the union could be found guilty of unfair labor practices.

Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Is it unfair to exempt employees to deprive them of overtime wages Why or why not
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Federal Medical Leave Act Jennifer Willis worked for Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc. (CCE), in Louisiana as a senior account manager. On a Monday in May 2003, Willis called her supervisor to tell him that she was sick and would not be able to work that day. She also said that she was pregnant, but she did not say she was sick because of the pregnancy. On Tuesday, she called to ask where to report to work and was told that she could not return without a doctor's release. She said that she had a doctor's appointment on "Wednesday," which her supervisor understood to be the next day. Willis meant the following Wednesday. For more than a week, Willis did not contact CCE. When she returned to work, she was told that she had violated CCE's "No Call/No Show" policy. Under this policy "an employee absent from work for three consecutive days without notifying the supervisor during that period will be considered to have voluntarily resigned." She was fired. Willis filed a suit in a federal district court against CCE under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). To be eligible for FMLA leave, an employee must inform an employer of the reason for the leave. Did Willis meet this requirement Did CCE's response to Willis's absence violate the FMLA Explain. [ Willis v. Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc., 445 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2006)]
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
QUESTION WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Wrongful Discharge. Denton and Carlo were employed at an appliance plant. Their job required them to perform occasional maintenance work while standing on a wire mesh twenty feet above the plant floor. Other employees had fallen through the mesh, and one of them had been killed by the fall. When their supervisor told them to perform tasks that would likely involve walking on the mesh, Denton and Carlo refused because they feared they might suffer bodily injury or death. Because they refused to do the requested work, the two employees were fired from their jobs. Was their discharge wrongful If so, under what federal employment law To what federal agency or department should they turn for assistance
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
VIDEO QUESTION: Employment at Will. Go to this text's Web site at www.cengage.conj/blaw/clarkson and select "Chapter 34." Click on "Video Questions" and view the video titled Employment at Will. Then answer the following questions. (a) In the video, Laura asserts that she can fire Ray "for any reason; for no reason." Is this true Explain your answer. (b) What exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine are discussed in the chapter Does Ray's situation fit any of these exceptions (c) Would Ray be protected from wrongful discharge under whistleblowing statutes Why or why not (d) Assume that you are the employer in this scenario. What arguments can you make that Ray shouldnot be able to sue for wrongful discharge in this situation
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Immigration Work Status Mohammad Hashmi, a citizen of Pakistan, entered the United States in 2002 on a student visa. Two years later, when he applied for a job at CompuCredit, he completed an 1-9 form and checked the box to indicate that he was "a citizen or national of the United States." Soon after submitting that form, he married a U.S. citizen. Several months later, the federal immigration services claimed that Hashmi had misrepresented himself as a U.S. citizen. Hashmi contended that he had not misrepresented himself. At an administrative hearing, he testified that when he filled out the I-9 form he believed that he was a "national of the United States" because he was legally in the country under a student visa and was going to marry a U.S. citizen. He requested that his immigration status be adjusted to account for the fact that he was employed and married to an American. The immigration judge rejected that request and found that Hashmi had made a false claim on the I-9 form. He ruled that Hashmi was "inadmissible" to the United States and that his legal status in the country could not be amended because of his marriage or employment. Hashmi appealed. Was it reasonable for Hashmi to think he was a U.S. national Should his visa status be changed because of his marriage and employment Why or why not [Hashmi v. Mukasey , 533 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2008)]
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
CASE PROBLEM WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Immigration. Nicole Tipton and Sadik Seferi owned and operated a restaurant in Iowa. Acting on a tip from the local police, agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement executed search warrants at the restaurant and at an apartment where some restaurant workers lived. The agents discovered six undocumented aliens working at the restaurant and living together. When the 1-9 forms for the restaurant's employees were reviewed, none were found for the six aliens. They were paid in cash while other employees were paid by check. The jury found Tipton and Seferi guilty of hiring and harboring illegal aliens. Both were given prison terms. The defendants challenged the conviction, contending that they did not violate the law because they did not know that the workers were unauthorized aliens. Was that argument credible Why or why not [ United States v. Tipton, 518 F.3d 591 (8th Cir. 2008)]
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Workers' Compensation Law. In 1999, after working for Atchison Leather Products, Inc., in Kansas for ten years, Beverly Tull began to complain of hand, wrist, and shoulder pain. Atchison recommended that she contact a certain physician, who in April 2000 diagnosed the condition as carped tunnel syndrome "severe enough" for surgery. In August, Tull filed a claim with the state workers' compensation board. Because Atchison changed workers' compensation insurance companies every year, a dispute arose as to which company should pay Tull's claim. Fearing liability, no insurer would authorize treatment, and Tull was forced to delay surgery until December. The board granted her temporary total disability benefits for the subsequent six weeks that she missed work. On April 23, 2002, Berger Co. bought Atchison. The new employer adjusted Tull's work so that it was less demanding and stressful, but she continued to suffer pain. In July, a physician diagnosed her condition as permanent. The board granted her permanent partial disability benefits. By May 2005, the bickering over the financial responsibility for Tull's claim involved five insurers-four of which had each covered Atchison for a single year and one of which covered Berger. [ Tull v. Atchison Leather Products Inc., 37 Kan.App.2d 87, 150 P.3d 316 (2007)] (a) When an injured employee files a claim for workers' compensation, a proceeding is held to assess theinjury and determine the amount of compensation. Should a dispute between insurers over the payment of the claim be resolved in the same proceeding Why or why not (b) The board designated April 23, 2002, as the date of Tull's injury. What is the reason for determining the date of a worker's injury Should the board in this case have selected this date or a different date Why (c) How should the board assess liability for the payment of Tull's medical expenses and disability benefits Would it be appropriate to impose joint and several liability on the insurers (holding each of them responsible for the full amount of damages), or should the individual liability of each of them be determined Explain.
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
J J argued that Smith was exempt under either the administrative employee exemption or the outside salesperson exemption. The district court found, though, that Smith did not qualify for the outside salesperson exemption. What single fact might have made Smith ineligible for the outside salesperson exemption
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Vesting The United Auto Workers (UAW) represents workers at Caterpillar, Inc., and negotiates labor contracts on their behalf. A 1988 labor agreement provided lifetime no-cost medical benefits for retirees but did not state when the employees' rights to those benefits vested. This agreement expired in 1991. Caterpillar and the UAW did not reach a new agreement until 1998. Under the new agreement, retiree medical benefits were subject to certain limits, and retirees were to be responsible for paying some of the costs. Workers who retired during the period when no agreement was in force filed a suit in a federal district court to obtain benefits under the 1988 agreement. Review the Employee Retirement Income Security Act vesting rules for private pension plans on page 668. What is the most plausible application of those rules to these facts Why [ Winnett v. Caterpillar ; Inc., 553 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2009)]
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu