CASE SUMMARY 11.4 Waremart Foods v. NLRB, 354 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2004) UNFAIR LA

Question

CASE SUMMARY 11.4 Waremart Foods v. NLRB, 354 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2004) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES WinCo operates a grocery store in California on a 10-acre lot. In accordance with company policy, WinCo allows no solicitors on its premises except for allowing scouts to sell cookies. When a local union was campaigning for the upcoming election, nonemployee union representatives came on the premises and passed out pro-union literature in the company parking lot and in the employee cafeteria during an unpaid lunch hour. WinCo forced the organizers to vacate the premises, and the union complained. CASE QUESTIONS 1. Does WinCo have the right to limit the local union's campaign activities on its property? What would WinCo have to prove in order to do so? Cite an example. 2. Would the union's actions have any impact on the upcoming election? Explain.

Explanation / Answer

1)a)Yes ,WINCO have the right to limit the local unions campaign activities on its property.
                    If we have observed perkins coie works with corporate political law clients.They have mentioned some guidelines.They are: -
1)It advised on federal campaign finance law and regulation.
2)Advised corporations on complying with state campaign finance requirements.
3)Designing and implementing internal compliance and training programs to ensure with campaign finance and lobbying.
4)Advised new ways to participate in the political process after the supreme court decision in citizens United v.FEC
5)Litigating in federal and state court matters relating to political activity and expression.
6)providing representation in public corruption and criminal campaign finance investigations.

So, by the above points we can clearly state that ,winco have the right to limit the local unions campaign activities on its property because the Courts and the federal agencies have given clear instructions and guidelines for the political activity in the organisation.

1)b)winco have to prove that:-

a)Employees of our organization may be influenced by the literature provided by the unions and may vote according to that.
b)As the employees are the tax payers ,they should have the free thinking on the election process .
c)As company is an different entity and politics shouldn't be made in its premises.
d)company employees association with the political parties within the premises are unethical.
e)And the laws are also stating that no political activity in companies.

2)Yes ,the union actions will have an impact on the upcoming elections.They could be either way:-
a)As they have passed out pro- union literature to the employees ,it can have an influence on them.
b)As they have utilised the company premises for the political gains it may cause some negativity during the election.
c)If the points in the literature were good in the point of view of the employees the may vote in the favour of the pro-union party.

Conclusion: -Making of political activites in the company premises are unethical.Companies have to act like winco. laws and regulations are also preventing political activities in companies.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

---

---

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