1 / 3

DARLINGTON POINTS

DARLINGTON POINTS. Corporate Structure Darlington controlled by R. Milliken, part of a “single employer” Employer has absolute right to totally close business for any reason Partial closing may be unlawful: criteria

vic
Télécharger la présentation

DARLINGTON POINTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. DARLINGTONPOINTS • Corporate Structure • Darlington controlled by R. Milliken, part of a “single employer” • Employer has absolute right to totally close business for any reason • Partial closing may be unlawful: criteria • interest: person closing must have an interest in or relationship to other facilities such that person can obtain benefits from discouraging unionization in those facilities • intent: person must have closed facility with intent or purpose of reaping benefits in other facilities • effect: partial closing would likely have effect of chilling unionization in other facilities

  2. Discussion of Limits of Balancing Principle • Balancing principle first established in Republic Aviation • “A violation of 8(a)(1) alone therefore presupposes an act which is unlawful even absent a discriminatory motive. Whatever may be the limits of . . . 8(a)(1), some employer decisions are so peculiarly matters of management prerogative they they would never constitute violations of . . . 8(a)(1), whether or not they involved sound business judgment, unless they also violated . . . 8(a)(3)” (quoted by OHA at 309).

  3. Textile Workers Union v. DarlingtonU.S. Sup. Ct, 1965, 380 U.S. 263 • “Although employees may be prohibited from engaging in a strike under certain conditions, no one would consider it a violation of the Act for the same employees to quit their employment en masse, even if motivated by a desire to ruin the employer. The very permanence of such action would negate any future economic benefit to the employees” (380 U.S. at 272). • Major League umpires in 1999.

More Related