Business Ethics, E-Commerce, Regulatory, and International Issues, Research Paper Example

Critical Legal Thinking

The ethics involved in the Lechmere case are, in a word, complex.  On one level, there is strong reason to support that union organizers should be allowed to distribute handbills on parked cars.  First and foremost, the actions were not invasive or in any way a hindrance to the company’s functioning.  It is likely that the handbill material was also not inflammatory or derogatory to the employer, and there is as well the important reality that the cars belonged to the employees, who then had the prerogative to object.  Then, there is the factor that unionization is typically viewed as beneficial to workers, so the ethics are more affirmed.  At the same time, there remains the issue of property rights, and content of material should not be a consideration here; no matter the nature of the material, the distribution violated Lechmere’s basic rights.

This element of union intent, perceived or otherwise, is critical as well in assessing the union’s right to so make contact with employees.  Certainly, such venues are ideal for union purposes, as here is an assembly of all the relevant personnel. Nonetheless, no union has this right because no external party has this right, and to grant it to unions implies a judicial sanctioning of the union intent not within any court’s purview.  The Supreme Court’s decision supporting Lechmere (Cheeseman, 2012,  p. 440) is pro-business, but it is important to see it as such apart from the union component.  Just as Lechmere would have been correct to sue if another employer posted offers on employee cars, its rights were ethically affirmed as, simply, the owner of the space in which the cars were parked.

Law Case with Answers

Viewing the Marquez/SAG case from the perspective of a right-to-work state, and how this would potentially alter the Supreme Court’s upholding of the union’s right to prevent Marquez’ working at the theater, is not as simple as it may seem.  Right-to-work states are not without complications on the order of union negotiations.  For example, railway employees are not so protected in terms of choosing to support a union, chiefly due to the immense power and presence of certain unions (NRW, 2014); consequently, the individual’s actual power to support or not support a union in such states is limited.  Then, and beyond this, there is the inescapable reality of the contract as negotiated between Lakeside and SAG.  Marquez’ challenges to the courts were by no means weak, and she brought important contractual matters to the Court’s attention.  At the same time, and as correctly observed by the U.S.S.C., Marquez’ was in effect insisting upon policies of disclosure within the union and the theater utterly unrealistic, and which go to the understandings within the unionization.  The Court maintained a sensible standard:

“When a labor organization has been selected as the exclusive representative of the employees in a bargaining unit, it has a duty… to represent all members fairly” (LLI, 2014).  As SAG and Lakeside conformed to these proscriptions, the ruling was just because hiring Marquez would have blatantly violated the security clause in place.  No right-to-work law or perspective, ultimately, may challenge a binding contract between a union and an employer when, as here, is is clearly made in good faith.

Critical Legal Thinking Cases

The U.S.S.C. ruled in favor of the American Ship Building Company, finding that no unfair labor practice was committed in the lay-offs, and this is all the more interesting because the Court acknowledged the motive of applying economic pressure to induce a settlement (Justia, 2014).  On one level, this decision dangerously allows employers leeway in action when union disputes arise.  On another, however, the trajectory of events leading to the company’s actions justifies the responses; if such a decision too greatly empowers employers, it also serves to restrain union initiatives very much going to “unfair” practices, as in the calling of strikes to gain leverage for themselves.  John B. Wilson was denied his workman’s compensation benefits, as the Court of Appeals upheld the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s denial (Leagle, 2014).  The ruling is correct, although the implications are open to question.  As Wilson was seeking to better himself for his work, the denial sends a negative message to employees similarly minded.  At the same time, the efforts were completely voluntary, so granting compensation here would have opened the doors for an inestimable number of claims made not related to actual injury on the job.  The Court of Appeals ruled that Corbesco was negligent in the death of Roger Matthew, despite the company’s claim that the roof being repaired served as adequate flooring (Prentice Hall, 2014).  This was an essential verdict; given the working conditions, there can be no rationale excusing Corbesco, and not citing liability here would translate to gross violations of basic workers’ rights to safety.  The court’s finding that the Starbucks corporation was not liable in the Massey suit is crucial, in that any other ruling would have been dangerously unconscionable.  The employees in question were plainly not acting in their capacities for the company in assaulting others on the street: “In fact, the employees deliberately waited until Massey had voluntarily left the store before they assaulted her” (CaseText, 2013).  Lastly, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 has had enormous implications for business, even as social conditions and public response calls for modification.  In a sense, this Act moves American business to a more “socialist” model, in which the employer plays a personal role in the worker’s life.  At the same time, it is firmly rooted in ethical necessity, and reflects how business must accommodate the human elements of illness, child-bearing, and caregiving as, not discretionary, but inherent parts of human, and consequently worker, existence.

Ethics Case
In defense of the workers in the Shop Rite scenario, the store may be seen as having acted rashly in firing the employee suspected of cutting the flour bags.  More damning was the termination of those employees walking out in protest over the firing, and it may be argued that all of its actions revealed the store as highly antagonistic to the union negotiations or presence.  This is, however, a weak argument at best.  The store was perfectly justified in assuming that the unusual and extensive damage to merchandise was the work of disgruntled employees, as the flour bag circumstances are hard to interpret in any way favorable to that employee.  This translates to the strike as illegal, in that the sole motivating agent for it was to express solidarity for an employee who had actually broken the law, apart from behaving so poorly on the job.  Shop Rite was justified in terminating these striking employees, a reality existing despite the sizable number; that is to say, the ethical imperative applies no matter the number of employees joining in on the unacceptable behavior.  The entire scenario reveals a workforce extremely adversarial to its employer, and acting in bad faith consistently.  While it would be to Shop Rite’s credit to open the door to rehiring, the store is under no ethical obligation whatsoever to recant or apologize for its actions.

References

CaseText. (2013). Massey v. Starbucks Corp. No. 03 CIV. 7279 (SAS). (S.D.N.Y. JUL. 9, 2004). Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/massey-v-  starbucks-corp#.U7WFtfldWzk

Cheeseman, H. R. (2012). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce: Business Ethics, E-commerce, Regulatory, and International Issues, 7^th Ed.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Justia U.S. Supreme Court. (2014).  American Ship Building Co. v. Labor Board – 380 U.S. 300 (1965).  Retrieved from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/300/

Leagle. (2014).  Wilson v. Workers’ Comp Appeals BD Docket No. F008211.196 Cal.App.3d 902 (1987)239 Cal. Rptr. 719. Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/decision/19871098196CalApp3d902_11032.xml/WILSON%20v.%20WORKERS’%20COMP.%20APPEALS%20BD.

Legal Information Institute (LII).  (2014).  Marquez v. Screen Actors (97-1056)525 U.S. 33 (1998) 124 F.3d 1034, affirmed. Cornell University Law School. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1056.ZO.html

National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.(NRW). (2014). Right to Work States.  Retrieved from http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Prentice-Hall. (2014).  Corbesco, Inc. v. Dole, Secretary of Labor (5^th Cir.).  Retrieved from http://www.prenhall.com/divisions/bp/app/phblaw/html/cases/