Assignment:
Review the book labor and employment law by David P.Twomeyand response the below:
Q: Zartic, Inc., employed approximately 425 people, including a number of MexicanAmericans. In early July, two Zartic workers were severely burned on the job, and the employees began complaining about safety issues and working conditions. The employees also discussed the possibility of striking. On July 18 and 19, James Wells, a Zartic employee who was also a member of the Ku Klux Klan, solicited fellow employees to sign a leaflet designating the American Workers Union (AWU) as their bargaining representative. The leaflet stated that the AWU would try to obtain dismissal of all green-card holders and illegal aliens, a wage increase, improved insurance and retirement benefits, a new leave system, new work rules, and a reasonable overtime policy. Early on July 20, Wells and 25 other men dressed in KKK garb picketed Zartic's plant, carrying signs that contained derisive comments about Mexican-Americans, as well as slogans calling for better working conditions and benefits. Many Zartic employees refused to report for work, and the AWU pamphlets were distributed to the striking employees. Zartic immediately began hiring replacements and obtained from the district court a temporary restraining order that prohibited any picketing designed to force Zartic to terminate or refuse to employ persons of Mexican ancestry. The order specifically did not prohibit picketing or labor activity tied to a legitimate labor dispute. By Tuesday, July 21, the picket signs were altered so that references to MexicanAmericans were eradicated. Although a company policy authorized termination of any employee with three unexcused absences, Zartic management decided not to fire the striking employees. Instead, the company informed the employees that day that they had been permanently replaced, but they were placed on a preference recall list. On Wednesday, July 22, the strikers abandoned the strike and offered unconditionally to return to work. When Zartic refused, picketing resumed until August 9. Between July 22 and August 9, Zartic hired 102 new employees. During the same period, Zartic did not recall any of the strikers. The General Counsel alleged that Zartic engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing to rehire striking employees. Zartic contended that the strike had an illegal objective, and thus the strikers had no reinstatement rights under the NLRA. Were the Zartic strikers entitled to reinstatement? Decide. [Zartic, Inc. v. NLRB, 124 LRRM 2807 (11th Cir.)]