Introduction
Human Resources policies have played an essential role in the success of an organization. It is important for any organization to plan its HR policies according to the laws and regulations that govern it. Before the formation of National Labor Relations Board, labor unions use to play an important role in protecting the rights of the employees. The NLRB took over the labor union by establishing several laws developed by the federal government to safeguard the rights of the employees. These laws help to protect the employees from injustice as well as provide the employers with regulations that may help in smooth operations of the businesses. Hence, it is important to understand the rules and regulations for HR practices to avoid legal obligations.
The paper has been developed to evaluate critically a court case “Frankl Vs HTH Corporation” to understand the importance of maintaining laws and regulations in operating a business. The case study will provide details about the court case, and the decision of the judge will be analyzed to understand the rules and regulations that must be maintained while conducting HR practices. The paper will discuss the impact of the case on the organization and develop strategies that must be used by the HR managers to have smooth operations of business.
Background
The union of the organization had begun its organizing drive over ten years ago. The first election, which was conducted by the NLRM in July 2002, was overturned by the Board. This was a result of the HTH’s coercive interrogation of the employees and their engagement in other forms of objectionable conduct ("FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.", 2016). A second election was conducted in the year of 2005, which was also put under the scanner because of the unlawful actions on the part of the HTH. It was decided upon by the Board that the election results would be allowed if it was for the Union, but the same would be canceled if in favor of the HTH. The result of the election was that the Union won by a single vote margin and was certified on August 15, 2005.
The initial phase of bargaining had started in January 2006. It has to be noted that the two parties had met for discussion for thirty-seven times. Their discussion had enabled them on reaching towards a tentative agreement over various issues. Although such progress was not much, as the HTH was insisting on three provisions, which was eliminating any meaningful role that the Union would have. The first provision that the HTH wanted was the clause for recognition, which would allow the HTH to change the conditions of the employment as and when they want. The second demand for provision on the part of the HTH was to retain the role of the Hotel Management, which would enable them to manage the employees, hire them or fire them or discipline them as per their wishes. The third provision demanded by the HTH was to be the sole handler of any grievance with regards to the hotel, and their decision would be final and binding on all.
In December, 2006, HTH had them backed out from any form of discussion and further negotiations with the Union. Instead, they had given away the management job to the Pacific Beach Hotel Management, an independent entity, which was created by the HTH. PBHM was responsible for the daily management duties and the operations of the Hotel starting from January 2007. But it is pertinent to mention here that HTH was the one in power and taking all the important decisions. HTH further advised the Union to conduct further negotiations with the PBHM, but it was not disclosed to the Union that HTH was still in absolute power over the hotel as well as over the bargaining process.
At the end of 2007, there was an agreement on the various issues in-between PBHM and the Union. The PBHM had asked the HTH to reveal their ownership to the Union and accept the agreement. In response to such a request HTH canceled the contract with PBHM and the entire process of bargaining was stopped on 1st December 2007. HTH now openly resumed control of the hotel and disavowed the Union, by stating that they were not in favor within the organization. HTH then without facing any opposition changed the conditions of service and employment. It had increased the number of rooms that the house staff would have to clean per day. They even made it mandatory, that the employees shall have to reapply for their posts within the organization. At the end of the rehiring process, HTH was adamant and did not rehire seven employees, who were representing the union for the meeting, wherein the bargaining was being done between the two parties. Their employment with the organization was effectively canceled.
Analysis of the case
Before further analysis of the case is done, it is pertinent that we have a clear understanding of the law that is applicable to such a case. The better understanding of the law would allow us to understand the ruling of the court of law in the case. Pertinent to mention here is the fact that this case was being decided upon by the court of law under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Public Employees Relations Act (PERA), and the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA). Although a major focus shall be on the NLRA for this particular case (Griffin, 2009).
The fundamental premise for the NLRA is the protection of any organization or union and the right to bargain on the part of the employees. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the law is not dictating any particular term for a contract. It simply acts as a framework for the labor and the management for negotiating a contract wherein the wage, working hour and other conditions for employments are agreed upon the same. The law is used for protection of the employees and prevents the unilateral power on the part of the employers. As per the terms stated in the NLRA, the employer should negotiate with the union while keeping a good faith. This states that the employer does not have to agree completely with the union; neither does the Union have to comply with the terms of the employer. But it is also pertinent to mention that the Act strictly prohibits any form of management on the part of the employer, which would affect the outcome of the negotiation.
In the case, as above mentioned, it has been observed that the employer has been in blatant violation of the NLRA. As a result of which, upon appeal of the Union, a case was filed with the Board by the Regional Director under the premises of Cease and Desists of the unlawful activities on the part of the Employer herein. The case was put up for judgment thrice in a court of law, through repetitive violation of the law on the part of the employer (Merrifield & Morris, 2008). It eventually took a decade to get a final ruling on the case from the court of law, which was against the interest of the employers.
Discussion
For the above-mentioned case, it has to be noted that the Employer was in violation of the terms and conditions of the NLRA. As a result of which, they were pulled into a legal proceeding by the Regional Director for their unlawful treatment of their employees. By following unlawful activities about the bargaining with the Union, the HTH was able to gain complete control over the hotel. They were able to change the functioning and operation of the hotel as and when they deemed fit; they left out the Union from the entire management process.
As a result of such unlawful actions, the Court of Law had initially provided an injunction to the HTH, which was later challenged by the HTH. Upon the second hearing of the case, the Court of Law had not only upheld the initial injunction but had also found the HTH in violation of various Labor rights ("HTH Corp. v. Frankl - Opposition | OSG | Department of Justice", 2016). Therefore, the Court passed a decision of Cease and Desist, which stated that the HTH had to refrain from any activities that would not in the interest of its employees and had to re-bargain with the union for formulation of a proper agreement of management.
Conclusion
It has to be noted that the ruling of the Court of Law is in accordance with the terms and conditions as stated in the NLRA and implemented by the NLRB. The HTH has been found to be in serious violations of the Employee rights and as a result, they shall have to comply now with the ruling of the Court. The unlawful activities on the part of the HTH shall have to desist immediately. Moreover, it has been found that the HTH was not behaving in accordance with the conduct of a Court of Law. Thus, ultimately the petition of the Regional Director and the Board for Cease and Desist was granted, while the HTH’s petition for review of the decision was rejected.
References
FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions.. (2016). Findlaw. Retrieved April 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1611286.html
Griffin, J. (2009). Labor Law: National Labor Relations Act: Jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Michigan Law Review, 37(8), 1328. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1283128
HTH Corp. v. Frankl - Opposition | OSG | Department of Justice. (2016). Justice.gov. Retrieved April 2016, from https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/hth-corp-v-frankl-opposition
Merrifield, L., & Morris, C. (2008). American Labor Policy: A Critical Appraisal of the National Labor Relations Act. Industrial And Labor Relations Review, 41(4), 631. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2523602
