Spotted Frog Winery California, produces 75,000 cases of wine a year. It employs 52 full-time workers and, during harvest, another 25 people as pickers. During the 2011 harvest, some employees were unhappy about working conditions and discussed unionizing. They contacted the Winery Workers of America (WWA) for help. Spotted Frog management was upset. If it had to pay workers more (as the union promised), the winery would lose its slim profits. Believing he was acting correctly, the president distributed a memo stating that any employee caught discussing unionization would be fired. Pierre, the wine master at Spotted Frog, was furious about the memo and became an advocate for the union cause. Management would not fire Pierre because he gave their wine its unique taste. But they did fire ten employees who spoke with Pierre. WWA collected authorization cards from employees, requested a representation election, and won a close election. The union, with Pierre as its agent, began negotiating a collective bargaining agreement. Negotiations went badly as the management rejected every proposal. WWA called a strike against Spotted Frog. After two weeks, management caved in and signed a contract, so its employees returned to work. As Pierre entered the winery, he did not see some grape skins on the floor. He slipped and was injured. If Spotted Frog management went to court for an injunction to stop the WWA strike, management would be:
a. granted an injunction based on the Taft-Hartley Act
b. denied an injunction based on the Norris-La Guardia Act c. granted an injunction based on the Norris-La Guardia Act
d. denied an injunction based on the Fair Labor Standards Act e. granted an injunction because Pierre was irrational
Quick Reply
