Deck 18: Business and Employees: Employment Regulation

Question 1

Under the Equal Pay Act, which of the following would be violations?

A) Seniority systems that mean women are paid less when they enter the work force
B) Merit systems that mean women are paid less when they enter the work force
C) Failure to institute comparable worth pay
D) None of the above

Answer 1

Equal Pay Act, 1963:
The equal pay Act, 1963 takes into account merit systems. Merit rates underlines performance equally for both the gender. It is based on the skills job requires and the amount of hardship involved in the job.
• The option "A" is not correct because equal pay Act does not consider seniority systems in which men are paid more and women are paid less.
• The option "B" is not correct because merit systems do not mean that women are offered lesser pay than men.
• The option "C" is not correct because failure to pay equally will not create a merit system and thus the answer cannot be considered as a correct answer.
The correct option is "D" because the merit systems take into account equal treatment for men and women. The skill and the hard work required for the job and any difference from the same is considered as a violation.
Therefore, the correct option is

Question 2

Casimer Gacioch began working for Stroh Brewery on February 24, 1947. When he began his work for Stroh, he was predisposed to alcoholism, but he had not yet become an uncontrolled alcoholic.
Beer was provided free at the brewery and was available to all employees on the job at "designated relief areas." This availability had been negotiated through a collective bargaining agreement. Employees could drink beer during their breaks and at lunch with no limit on the amount.
Mr. Gacioch did not drink at home during the week but drank three or four bottles of beer on the weekend. At work he drank 12 bottles a day. He was not a test taster; he ran a machine that fed cases of beer to a soaker.
In 1973, Stroh Brewery noticed Mr. Gacioch's drinking problem and required him to sign an agreement stating that he could no longer drink on the job. He continued to drink, and seven months after the first agreement he signed a second agreement not to drink on the job. He again continued to drink, was intoxicated on the job, and could not perform his work.
He was fired on August 30, 1974. Mr. Gacioch filed for workers' compensation on the grounds that he was an alcoholic as a result of his work. Should Stroh's be required to pay for Mr. Gacioch's disability? [ Gacioch v. Stroh Brewery Co., 396 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1990).

Answer 2

Employee Compensation: This term refers to an insurance program which emphasis that employer need to pay to the employee a sum of amount because of the following reasons-
1) Firing an employee before hi due date of retirement
2) If the employee suffers physical injuries during his work
Person G is not eligible for workmen compensation because his job did not turn him into an alcoholic. By the time he joined the job person G was already a drinker but he could not drink much because of the lack of availability of alcohol.
Despite the fact he is not producing much of work he was not asked to leave the job but he was given a chance to redeem himself by not drinking in the job. Later when he failed, he was given a second chance too by the employer. Later, when he failed for the second time too, he was fired thus the company had given him enough time and opportunity to correct his ways but he could not.
Thus, it can be concluded that company S is not required to pay the compensation as person G is not liable for the same.

Question 3

FICA contributions are paid by whom?

A) Entirely by the employee
B) Entirely by the employer
C) Half by the employer and half by the employee
D) Half by the employer and half by the Social Security system

Answer 3

Federal Insurance Contribution Act:
The federal insurance contribution act is brought into force so that employees get the all important benefit of insurance coverage. The federal government suggests that the employer will have to pay half the insurance amount and the employee will be bearing the other half of the amount.
• The option "A" is not correct because under FICA employee will not bear all the insurance cost by himself.
• The option "B" is not correct because under the FICA rules employer will not bear all the insurance cost by himself.
• The option "D" is not correct because the social security system will not bear any insurance costs of the employees.
In this question, the correct option is "C". Under the FICA rules and regulations an employee needs to pay half the insurance amount and the employer will be paying the other half.
Therefore, the correct option is

Question 4

Whirlpool is a manufacturer of household appliances. In its plant in Marion, Ohio, Whirlpool uses a system of overhead conveyor belts to send a constant stream of parts to employees on the line throughout the plant. Beneath the conveyor belt is a netting or mesh screen to catch any parts or other objects that might fall from the conveyor belt.
Some items did fall to the mesh screen, located some 20 feet above the plant floor. Maintenance employees had the responsibility for removing the parts and other debris from the screen. They usually stood on the iron frames of the mesh screen, but occasionally they found it necessary to go onto the screen itself. While one maintenance employee was standing on the mesh, it broke, and he fell the 20 feet to his death on the floor below. After this fatal accident, maintenance employees were prohibited from standing on the mesh screen or the iron frames. A mobile platform and long hooks were used to remove objects.
Two maintenance employees, Virgil Deemer and Thomas Cornwell, complained about the screen and its safety problems. When the plant foreman refused to make corrections, Mr. Deemer and Mr. Cornwell asked for the name of an OSHA inspector, and Mr. Deemer contacted an OSHA official on July 7, 1974.
On July 8, 1974, Mr. Deemer and Mr. Cornwell reported for work and were told to do their maintenance work on the screen in the usual manner. Both refused on safety grounds, so the plant foreman sent them to the personnel office. They were then forced to punch out and were not paid for the six hours left on their shift.
Explain Mr. Deemer and Mr. Cornwall's rights under OSHA. [ Whirlpool Corporation v Marshall, 445 U.S. 1 (1980)]

Question 5

ERISA

A) Requires all employers to have an employee pension plan
B) Requires all publicly traded companies to have pension plans
C) Requires pension plans to not include company stock
D) Was amended as a result of Enron's pension plan collapse

Question 6

OSHA requires vehicles with an obstructed rear view to be equipped with a reverse signal alarm. Mr. Knight, an independent contractor working for Clarkson Construction, operated a Clarkson dump truck that had no warning signal but had an obstructed rear view. If an injury resulted to a pedestrian when Mr. Knight backed onto the highway, what liability would there be? What could OSHA do? What could the pedestrian do? What effect, if any, does Mr. Knight's being an independent contractor have? If Mr. Knight were also injured, could he recover? [ Clarkson Constr. Co. v. OSHA , 531 F.2d 451 (10th Cir. 1980).]

Question 7

Under worker's compensation, which of the following is true?

A) Employee fault is immaterial.
B) Independent contractors are covered.
C) There can be no product liability suits for injuries caused by equipment.
D) The federal government is the administrator.

Question 8

Which of the following acts established the right of employees to unionize?

A) Taft-Hartley Act
B) Wagner Act
C) Landrum-Griffin Act
D) Norris La-Guardia Act

Question 9

How much advance notice of plant shutdowns must be made under the WARN Act?

A) 30 days
B) 60 days
C) 120 days
D) 99 weeks

Question 10

Which of the following laws gives workers the right to refuse to join a union?

A) Right-to-work laws
B) Norris-LaGuardia Act
C) Landrum-Griffin Act
D) Immigration Act

Question 11

Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund 251 P.3d 118 (Mont. 2011)
A Bear of a Worker's Compensation Case
Facts
Great Bear Adventures (Park) is located near West Glacier, Montana. Visitors to the Park enjoy a drivethrough experience of bears in their natural habitat.
Russell Kilpatrick owns the Park and lives on adjacent property. Brock Hopkins began working there in 2002, doing various tasks, including maintenance and feeding the bears. In the past, some workers have been known to smoke marijuana on the premises. Although Kilpatrick professed to not condone marijuana use by workers, he had smoked marijuana at the Park in the past, and on occasion had done so with Hopkins.
On November 2, 2007, Hopkins smoked marijuana on his way into work. When he arrived, Hopkins asked Kilpatrick if he should feed the bears as well. Testimony regarding Kilpatrick's answer conflicted. However, the Workers' Compensation Commission (WCC) ultimately found that Kilpatrick never told Hopkins not to feed the bears.
Hopkins mixed food for the bears and used Kilpatrick's truck to drive into the Park. He entered the bears' pen and began to place food out. At some point while Hopkins was working, the largest bear, Red, attacked him. The bear knocked Hopkins to the ground, sat on him, and bit his leg, knee, and rear-end. While this was occurring, another bear, Brodie, came up from behind, and bit Red. In response, Red moved off Hopkins momentarily, and Hopkins escaped by crawling under one of the electrified wires surrounding the pen. Kilpatrick eventually found Hopkins, and he was transported to the hospital by helicopter. He suffered severe injuries.
Kilpatrick did not carry workers' compensation insurance.
The WCC found for Hopkins, concluding that (1) Hopkins was employed by Kilpatrick at the time of Hopkins' injuries, (2) Hopkins was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injuries, (3) marijuana use was not the major contributing cause of Hopkins' injuries, and (4) Hopkins was not performing services in return for aid or sustenance only. Kilpatrick appealed.
Judicial Opinion
MCGRATH, Chief Justice
Hopkins had worked at the Park since 2002, received regular payments from Kilpatrick, and engaged in tasks at Kilpatrick's command. Furthermore, Kilpatrick's assertion that Hopkins was a volunteer is without support.
As the WCC stated, "[t]here is a term of art used to describe the regular exchange of money for favors-it is called 'employment.'"
On November 2, 2007, Kilpatrick compelled Hopkins to work at the Park. Even though there was conflicting testimony as to whether Kilpatrick agreed that Hopkins should feed the bears on that day, an employee's injuries are compensable unless the employee is not "attending to employment-related matters" and has abandoned the course and scope of his employment. Feeding the bears was one of Hopkins' regular employment duties.
Hopkins testified he was engaged in the "same routine" he had done for two or three years and would not have fed the bears had Kilpatrick expressly so instructed him. Feeding the bears was not a personal activity "severed" from the continuity of Hopkins' employment-related duties at the Park. Additionally, the WCC found that "Kilpatrick benefitted from the care and feeding of the bears that Hopkins provided since presumably customers are unwilling to pay cash to see dead and emaciated bears." Hopkins was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his injuries.
Non-prescription drug consumption will preclude an injured employee's benefits if consumption was the leading cause contributing to the result, when compared to all others. The WCC aptly noted, "Hopkins' use of marijuana to kick off a day of working around grizzly bears was ill-advised to say the least and mindbogglingly stupid to say the most." However, the WCC further noted that grizzlies are "equal opportunity maulers," without regard to marijuana consumption.
Without evidence of Hopkins' level of impairment, the WCC correctly concluded that marijuana was not the major contributing cause of Hopkins' injuries. Kilpatrick testified that he gave money to Hopkins, not as wages, but rather "out of his heart." The WCC found this testimony to be without credibility.
Affirmed.
Case Questions
1. Why was the question of actual employment an issue?
2. What does the court mean when it says that "bears are equal opportunity maulers"?
3. Of what significance is the confusion about the duty to feed the bears?

Question 12

Hotel Oasis, Inc., operates a hotel and restaurant in southwestern Puerto Rico. Employees filed complaints that they were not paid fully for all hours worked and that they were not paid minimum wage for some hours they worked. When the Department of Labor investigated, investigators discovered two sets of books on hours and wages-one set was used for government officials and the other for what was actually paid. The Department of Labor sought to hold the president of Hotel Oasis personally liable for the back wages. Can it impose personal liability on the officer of a corporation? [ Chao v. Hotel Oasis, Inc., 493 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2007).]

Question 13

Jane worked 36 hours in Week 1, 45 hours in Week 2, 48 hours in Week 3, and 30 hours in Week 4. How much does her employer owe her for overtime pay?

A) 13 hours
B) 3 hours
C) No overtime pay is due because Jane worked under 40 hours per week for two weeks
D) None of the above

Question 14

United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 24 v. NLRB 506 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
Veiled Threat or Economic Prediction?
Facts
In March 1999, United Food and Commercial Workers' (UFCW) attempted to organize a Smithfield Foods meatpacking plant in Wilson, North Carolina. After a three-month campaign, the union lost the election. The union filed a series of unfair labor practice charges against Smithfield, alleging that the company's antiunion campaign had tainted the election. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Smithfield executives violated NLRA section 8(a)(1) by threatening to close the company's Wilson plant if workers unionized.
On review, the NLRB found for Smithfield on the issues of threatened plant closure. The union appealed.
Judicial Opinion
TATEL, Circuit Judge
NLRA guarantees employees "the right to self- organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, … for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." Section 8(c), however, protects employers' First Amendment rights to convey their views on unionization to employees so long as such expression "contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit."
In a case like this, which deals only with predictions of adverse economic consequences, a two-part inquiry [is required] to distinguish "permissible predictions" from "forbidden threats." First, did the employer predict "adverse economic consequences" as a result of unionization? If not, the inquiry ends. But if the employer made such predictions, then we proceed to the second question: did those predictions rest on objective facts outside the employer's control?
In a series of speeches and letters designed to combat the UFCW's unionization campaign, Plant Manager Phil Price and Smithfield President and Chief Operating Officer Lewis Little repeatedly told employees that three other companies had previously operated the Wilson plant, that the UFCW had unionized the plant under each of those companies, and that each company ultimately shut down the plant. Both managers, however, carefully avoided linking the previous closures directly to the union. [One manager's speech included the following:]
In none of these three cases did a union contract provide long-term job security for employees. Maybe it was just the opposite. Maybe the union forced inflexible rules on these companies so that they could not compete in today's environment. Maybe this union made it so these companies couldn't satisfy their customers' demands. It really doesn't matter. Whether this union caused these other three plants to close is not for me to say. I don't know what happened. I do know that Smithfield wants this plant to be a success ….
Later in the unionization campaign, Price [wrote the following] in a letter to all Smithfield employees:
Did the UFCW cause these three companies to close the plant here on Wilco Boulevard? I don't know the answer to that. Maybe they did, maybe not. But I can spot a bad trend …. The UFCW is obviously a jinx for this plant. They have struck out for Wilson employees three times. It's time for another approach.
Finally, in an election-eve speech to employees, Smithfield President Lewis Little explained that he was "committed to the success of this plant." Echoing Price, however, Little made no predictions: "I cannot stand here and tell you what will happen." He concluded by urging employees not to "hang the UFCW around this plant's neck for a fourth time."
[W]e conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that neither Price nor Little threatened to close the Wilson plant in the event of unionization. As the Board found, neither executive predicted that the company would take any particular course of action, nor did either ever suggest closing the plant. To the extent that Little made any prediction at all, he told employees that he intended to invest in the Wilson facility and was "committed" to its success. The record also reveals that when asked whether Price ever said that "the plant would close if the union got in," one employee responded, "No, he just asked what wouldwhat do we think would happen."
In upholding the Board's decision, we acknowledge that the record could be read differently. Perhaps the Board could have interpreted the managers' statements as the union does, namely as "thinly veiled prediction[s] that electing the union a fourth time would result in closure."
Nevertheless, as the union acknowledges, it is the Board's duty, not ours, to "focus on the question: 'What did the speaker intend and the listener understand?'" Here, the Board determined that threats were neither intended nor understood.
The union argues that the Board departed from its own precedent, specifically Eldorado Tool, Division of Quamco, Inc., 325 N.L.R.B. 222 (1997). There, the employer had displayed a poster depicting a row of tombstones bearing names of plants that had previously closed after unionization. The last tombstone bore the employing plant's own name with a question mark beneath it. Although the Board concluded that the employer's actions violated the Act, the case is both distinguishable and irrelevant. It's distinguishable because there the Board found that "no member of the [employer's] management ever sought to clarify the message, or to assure employees that it was not predicting that the same fate awaited [them] as had befallen other plants," while here the Board found exactly the opposite.
For the reasons given above, we deny the union's petition for review.
Case Questions
1. What does the court find is critical in the statements by the managers about the future of the plant in the event of unionization?
2. Why was the Eldorado Tool decision a different outcome from this case?
3. What advice would you give plant managers when faced with a unionization effort?

Question 15

Supervisors at Wal-Mart asked employees to work off the clock, erase hours from time cards, and not to take breaks. Would there be an FLSA violation if the employees volunteered to comply with these requests?