Interpreting Laws and Court Decisions
Introduction
Laws are continuously changing and are always put in a language difficult for the common citizen to understand. The average working American is mostly unable to understand the legal language and terms. This makes the interpretation of laws and, even court decisions, a difficult undertaking. Labor laws in the US provide a necessary legal relationship among the workers’ labor unions, workers themselves, and the employers. The laws also form a basis on which the labor cases are determined in courts. The interpretation of both the court decisions and laws, therefore, remains significant to both the workers and their employees. This paper will analyze the challenges with interpreting labor and employment laws and court decisions.
Some challenges exist while trying to interpret employment or labor laws or even the court decisions arising from such laws. The laws can be interpreted from different angles, and knowing who is in the wrong is sometimes difficult. Correct law and judgment interpretations always present challenges.
One of such challenges is described in the Potts vs. ARC case study. Does a company violate any labor laws by telling an individual employee to keep his salary to himself? One point of view would be that the company didn’t violate any laws as they claim that it was the company’s policy for employees to keep their salaries secret. This is not unique with ARC. A good number of employers in America are known to have such salary secrecy policies (Gely and Leonard 123). In the case study, it only Potts who seems to be complaining, and other employees are fine with the policy. So the secrecy policy maybe said to be non-exploitative, and hence may be considered legitimate.
On the contrary, the case may be argued that the company violated labor laws. Additionally, The National Labor Relations Board considers pay secrecy policies illegal. The decisions by most courts have always concluded such cases illegal as they interfere with the right of the workers to address a complaint (Gely and Leonard 123). This derails the workers' effort to bargain for a salary increase, which violates section 7 rights of the Act. In situations where employers are found to be practicing such secrecy rules, a genuine reason must be given to justify the same (Gely and Leonard 123). In the case of ARA, the company does not provide a justifying business reason, and therefore they violated the laws. The NLRB and court decisions seem to agree that salary discussions within workers are protected as a concerted activity. Any attempt to shield this is a violation of current laws (Gely and Leonard 123).
Another challenge with the interpretation of labor laws concerning the same case study is whether laws were violated when Mr. Potts was laid off and the failure to be awarded future jobs. While everything could be suggesting that laws were violated, this does not seem like it. The employer enjoys ‘employment at will rule’ in which he can end the contract any time he feels like (Muhl 4). Following this rule, it may be argued that the company did not violate any labor laws (Dannin 9). Mr. Potts was laid off alongside other workers, and it, therefore, shows that the factor that he was campaigning for a pay increase was not the reason for his contract to be ended. A fair and just reason must have been responsible for his termination (Tess-Mattner 18).
In the case study involving Drake and Keeler vs. the employer, other challenges about the interpretation of laws arise. The two would argue that they were exercising their protected rights of collective bargaining (National Labour..para 34). The working conditions were not right for them, and there was the need for them to engage in an activity that would help them to get mutual protection. What they did seems legally accepted.
The management could also argue their case. First, the door could not be closed since most of the employees were comfortable with the situation. Their interest was placed on the 13 employees and not the two. It would be appropriate to satisfy a large number of employees. Secondly, the two didn’t complain further and instead walked away from work without authority from the management. It was, therefore, a normal managerial duty that was being carried out as punishment of disobedient workers (Agboola and Rafiu 236).
Drake and Keeler were discharged illegally. It was illegal of the management to fire the two employees because of the complaint that they raised. The complaint and what followed amounted to employees’ concerted activities that were not supposed to be interfered with. Interference resulted in an illegal practice (National Labour..para 39). They were not given an opportunity to defend their case, and there was no termination notice. Hence, they need to be compensated for the time lost, reinstated at work, and their privileges restored.
Conclusion
Labor laws and court decisions are ambiguous in their own ways. They present challenges with their interpretation. Most of the times, the wrongs can be argued to be right and vice versa. Their interpretation remains significant in the world of business as they affect the relationship between employers and their employees. It is, therefore, necessary that the best interpretation is sought.
Works Cited
Agboola, Akinlolu, and Rafiu Salawu. “Managing Deviant Behavior and Resistance to Change.” International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 6, no. 1, 20 Dec. 2011, p 235
Dannin, Ellen. "Why at-will employment is bad for employers and just cause is good for them." (2007), pp5-16
Gely, Rafael, and Leonard Bierman. "Pay secrecy/confidentiality rules and the National Labor Relations Act." U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 6 (2003): 121-156. Print.
Gely, Rafael, and Leonard Bierman. "Pay secrecy/confidentiality rules and the National Labor Relations Act." U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 6, 2003, pp 121.
Muhl, Charles. "The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions." Monthly Lab. Rev. 124, 2001, pp 3-11
National Labour and Relations Board. National Labor Relations Act. https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act. Accessed 23 Jan. 2017.
Tess-Mattner, Marna M. "Employer-Employee Issues: Eight Danger Areas." GPSolo 21, 2004 pp, 18-25
