The facts of the case in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984), are as follows: Two small leather processing companies based in Chicago named Sure-Tan Inc. and Surak Leather Company both employed 11 workers and most of them were illegal immigrants. In July 1976, eight of the workers from these two companies have given the authority to Chicago Leather Workers Union to be their collective bargaining representative. The said Union won during the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election sometime in December 10, 1976. However, these two companies filed their respective complaints before the NLRB and raised the issue that most of the members who voted during the election were illegal immigrants. Despite such action, the NLRB has given the union a certification, which prompted the president of Surak Leather Company to write a letter to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and made a request for the verification of the immigration status of the said employees. The findings of INS agents revealed that five employees were illegal workers in America and deported them.
The Board discovered that the employer’s action was done out of retaliation for the union activities of the employees and was considered a constructive discharge which is in violation of Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board made a final ruling that the employees may only be reinstated if they reenter the US legally and there is a law which permits them to be employed in the country.
The case that I located has met the requirements of an example of an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) because the employer has interfered and restrained the employees from exercising their right to collective bargaining. In this case, the Supreme Court held that undocumented aliens, including the employees in question were included in the protection of the NLRA. Here, there was force and intimidation employed by Surak Leather Company in order to prevent the employees to exercise their rights under the Act.
The ULP could have been prevented if the employer has recognized the rights of the workers to choose their own collective bargaining representative.
Works Cited:
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984).
