Employer Obligations Following a Strike

After a work stoppage, does the employer have an duty to put striking workers back in their prestrike place if there might be force aimed at them?

Diamond Walnut Growers Inc. v. NLRB

Need essay sample on Employer Obligations Following a Strike ?We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $13.90/page

order now

Harmonizing to the book “If the employer replaces the strikers with new employees, so one time the work stoppage is over, the strikers have a right to reinstatement if they offer an unconditioned offer to return to work. If their occupations are occupied by replacing workers, so unjust labour pattern strikers have a right to be reinstated, but economic strikers are not.” ( Dawn & A ; Hartman, 2012, p. 726 )

When reading on work stoppages it does non province anything sing force. I would assume that this means that the employee is entitled to their place that they stepped out on for work stoppage after the work stoppage was over. The book besides doesn’t give excessively much item on what the force was and if this employee was involved in the force. Another thing I would believe that would find this would be if the work stoppage was through a brotherhood or non. If it wasn’t through a brotherhood most provinces are able to fire without a cause. But if it was through a brotherhood the employee would be covered.

As I reread the chapter and read on NLRA, I believe the employer may hold favour on this. Although in the book it doesn’t stipulate if this is sing work stoppages, but harmonizing the book the NLRA doesn’t non cover force. “Acts or menaces of force are non protected.” ( Dawn & A ; Hartman, 2012, p. 717 ) So with that, it needs to be clear if the employee who was on work stoppage was violent. If they were, they are non entitled to their old place. I think it all depends on the inside informations of the instance to find if the employer has an duty of reinstating the employee to its place.

After reading Case Law

Diamond Walnut was a processing, packaging, and distribution works for Diamond nuts. It runs with seasonal and lasting employees. In 1991, 500 seasonal and lasting employees went on work stoppage. During the work stoppage Diamond brought in replacing workers to maintain the works running. Besides during the clip of the work stoppage there were Acts of the Apostless of force between employees on work stoppage and replacing employees, this lead to many keeping orders between both the parties.

After a twelvemonth of work stoppage, the brotherhood met with Diamond. They notified 2 employees were returning to work. One employee was a supervisor prior to the work stoppage and the other was fork lift truck driver, both were lasting employees. When they returned to work they were placed as seasonal workers in places that were non their old. They were easy reprimanded and targeted for neglecting to make things right.

The brotherhood filed a ailment that Diamond discriminated against the returning employees and besides how Diamond failed to put them in their old place where they were to be reinstated to their place. Diamond had no justifiable concluding for non reinstating employees to their old places.

When addressed by the Union. There were ailments filed of favoritism and that the employees were entitled to their places. Diamond claims they were non. They claimed they were protecting the replacing employees due to force from the employees who were on work stoppage. There were many other allegations that these employees participated in while on work stoppage. They were boycotting and protesting the company’s merchandise. It was in Diamonds concern that when puting these employees back into their places they could potential injury others or the merchandise.

Diamond was found in misdemeanor of “Section 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( 5 ) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 158 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( 5 ) , by declining to supply the Union with the names and references of current workers. Diamond does non dispute these findings.” ( hypertext transfer protocol: //openjurist.org/53/f3d/1085/diamond-walnut-growers-inc-v-national-labor-relations-board )

From my understanding the Union Board found Diamond in misdemeanor. Then Diamond challenged the board due to the logical thinkings of safety. The employees that were on work stoppage attempted sabotage and force. Diamond is non obligated reinstating employees that went on work stoppage. It is ill-defined to me how the instance ended. From what I gather. Diamond had a justifiable ground to travel these employees about but do non hold the right to know apart period. But they were looking out for their company.

**This instance was highly difficult to understand. I had searched easy interlingual renditions and still struggled. **

Chapter 16

Page 790

# 7

Does the supervisor’s statement constitute an knowing act of hurt by the employer, therefore taking the instance from the bounds set by the workers’ compensation legislative acts? Is it relevant to a jury determination if OSHA issues a commendation for a wilful misdemeanor in this instance before it goes to test?

Van Dunk v. Reckson Associates Realty Corp.

When registering for workers compensation in this state of affairs there is no-fault required. If a individual is injured on site at work, whoever is at mistake has nil to make with the claim. Workers compensation will cover all hurts that occur in a work force. This is a benefit each employee gets. It covers costs, amendss, and long term amendss.

OSHA has many demands and when finding at mistake is separate from workers compensation. OSHA is at that place to do certain all companies are ran safely to forestall hurts.

“OSHA requires that an employer provide a safe workplace.” ( Dawn & A ; Hartman, 2012, p. 762 )

From my understanding OSHA is wholly different than workers compensation. OSHA’s occupation is to supervise the employer, there work topographic point, and if things are running safely. On their web site they province “to assure safe and healthful on the job conditions for working work forces and adult females by puting and implementing criterions and by supplying preparation, outreach, instruction and assistance” ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www.osha.gov )

After reading Case Law

The complainant is the employee who was earnestly injured. He was working for a building company. The site they were working on was being affected by the conditions. Due to more impracticable conditions heading their way They were instructed to cover their site with particular cloth. They were holding issues with the cloth making all the country and blowing off. The complainant volunteered to travel into the Trench to make the terminal and cover it decently. His supervisor told the field

OSHA arrived after the incident and cited the company for carelessness. Due to the fact that no individual should come in a trench bigger than 5 pess and the trench that the complainant entered was between 18-20 pess. This was a misdemeanor. Not merely was that a misdemeanor, it is required the trench be good supported and approved to come in. This besides was non the instance. The site manager cognizing OSHA Torahs was cognizant of this and still allowed this state of affairs to happen. No 1 should hold entered the trench. The site manager admitted mistake and worked out the issue with OSHA. They were fined and worked out a trade with OSHA to pay $ 24,500.

This instance was foremost thrown out. Then was appealed by the complainant. Although OSHA fined and sited the incorrect making of the company. The jury has no ground to utilize this for a workers compensation claim. With that the complainant has to turn out that the company is apt for the hurts the complainant sustained and that they were at mistake due to negligence. Although there were many misdemeanors by OSHA and there was an entree by the employer. In the province of New Jersey they provide workers compensation benefits without mistake. Merely if proven that the employer deliberately hurt an employee can at that place be a apt suite. Since there is no cogent evidence that this was the instance. The tribunal declined that there were any knowing incorrect making on the employer.

I think the complainant should hold looked more into the benefits his workers comp claim would cover. Because there is no ground he should action the company when he is already wholly covered.


Alexander, D. , & A ; Hartman, L. P. ( 2012 ) .Employment jurisprudence for concern( 7th ed. ) . New York: McGraw-Hill.

DIAMOND WALNUT GROWERS INC v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 601 AFL CIO. ( n.d. ) .Findlaw. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from hypertext transfer protocol: //caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1054902.html

Google Scholar. ( n.d. ) .Google Scholar. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from hypertext transfer protocol: //scholar.google.com/scholar_case? case=13947923641005810283 & A ; hl=en & A ; as_sdt=6 & A ; as_vis=1 & A ; oi=scholarr

New Jersey ‘s Supreme Court Rejects Expansion Of “ Intentional Wrong ” Exception To Workers ‘ Compensation Act. ( n.d. ) .New Jersey ‘s Supreme Court Rejects Expansion Of? “ Intentional Wrong ” Exception To Workers ‘ Compensation Act. Retrieved August 18, 2014, from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.clausen.com/index.cfm/fa/firm_pub.article/article/0cfdff8f-8caf-4d49-827f-4f3360e8cf46/New_Jerseys_Supreme_Court_Rejects_Expansion_Of_Intentional_Wrong_Exception_To_Workers_Compensation_Act.cfm

Occupational Safety and Health Administration – Home. ( n.d. ) .Occupational Safety and Health Administration – Home. Retrieved August 18, 2014, from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.osha.gov/

Once Is Not Enough ( After All ) ! The New Jersey Supreme Court Reverses Van Dunk and Reaffirms the Exclusive Remedy Doctrine of the Workers ‘ Compensation Act. ( n.d. ) .Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman Goggin. Retrieved August 18, 2014, from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.marshalldennehey.com/defense-digest-articles/once-not-enough-after-all-new-jersey-supreme-court-reverses-van-dunk-and

OpenJurist. ( n.d. ) .53 F3d 1085 Diamond Walnut Growers Inc v. National Labor Relations Board. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from hypertext transfer protocol: //openjurist.org/53/f3d/1085/diamond-walnut-growers-inc-v-national-labor-relations-board

VAN DUNK v. RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORPORATION LLC. ( n.d. ) .Findlaw. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from hypertext transfer protocol: //caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1604525.html

BUS303 – Week 4 and 5 – Chapter Questions

Points Possible – 30
















Get your custom essay sample

Let us write you a custom essay sample

from Essaylead

Hey! So you need an essay done? We have something that you might like - do you want to check it out?

Check it out