An employer announced that it was going to close a union facility,and entered into negotiations with the union.Six drivers learned of an upcoming meeting,met over coffee to formulate their questions,and went to the site of the meeting.A union official told them to return to work,but the drivers insisted,and eventually were able to introduce themselves to the management representatives.They returned to work after having been gone for 3 hours,but were fired for being absent without authorization.The NLRB ruled in favor of the drivers,and the employer appealed.On appeal,the court ruled:
A) for the employer, since the employees essentially walked off the job during working hours without authorization, which is not a protected concerted activity
B) for the employer, since its representatives had met with the employees, so they had complied with their obligations
C) for the drivers, since they had a right under the NLRA to engage in protected concerted activity
D) for the drivers, because although they were able to introduce themselves to the management representatives, no actual discussion or negotiation took place
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q9: In Mastec Advanced Technologies,26 service technicians were
Q10: Which of the following employee rights is
Q11: Union security provisions:
A)are unlawful under the NLRA
Q12: Regarding representation election procedures,which of the following
Q13: Which of the following factors is relevant
Q15: The duty to bargain in good faith:
A)requires
Q16: Which of the following is true regarding
Q17: Which of the following is the agency
Q18: Non-employee organizers:
A)have no rights under the NLRA
Q19: Which of the following is an unfair
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents