34.3 Use the IRAC Method to breifly identify the Issue, the Legal Rule (Legal Te

Question

34.3 Use the IRAC Method to breifly identify the Issue, the Legal Rule (Legal Test), the Facts Applied to the Test (Analysis), and the Conclusion/ Holding of the case.

Contemporary Cars, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 814 F3d 859 (2016). In the Language of the Court HAMILTON, Circuilt Judgre as over 200 other dealerships throughout the United States. themselves and held off-site meetings. This case focuses on the dealerships service department [which the dealership Contemporary Can, Inc. . . . slls and services cars in Maidland. Florida. Bob Berryhill, the dealership's The union filed is reprs had previously split into three teams). petition. The (National Labor Relom general manager, is responsible for the of Machinists began a campaign . dealerships overall operations. " AutoNation owns the dealership, as well The technicians talked amon The International Association Board] approved the propaieod to organize the service technicians. bu unit, and an election was schedale In the weeks before the electin ryhill and Auto Nation vice presie

Explanation / Answer

Issue in the case:

The issue In this case whether the dealership and AutoNation unlawfully interfered in frustrating their employees rights by creating a coercive impression and examination, firing the workers, promising remedies thereby discouraging unionization.

Rule of law:

According to 1935 national labor relations act(NLRA), there are some practices which are considered to be unlawful from the part of the employer:

Analysis of the case:

The dealership’s actions prior to elections, put together with AutoNation policy that prohibits any solicitation on AutoNation property at any time resulted in an unfair labor practice because of the likelihood that it would protect the concerned activity.

The dealership’s discharge of Robert a week before the election was motivated by anti union animus.

The decision to fire Roberts was lack of skills.

Conclusion:

Substantial evidence supports board’s order and the judge’s order to the extent affirmed b y the board. There has been a denial of dealership and AutoNation’s petition for enforcing the board’s order entirely

The board provides its four technicians including orders to provide the lost benefits. The idea that these technicians would have received full benefits if they were retained is dubious.

The dealership must not be penalized for the delays that it was not responsible. However mitigation for the back pay remedies will require careful estimation..

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 3
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.