e.com/staticb/ui/index html?nbld-5697018nbNodeld-2063473 56kdeployment ld:48 79547636767 167880S86768&eISBN-9781 30526402 10!&parentida 206347540 TAP Peter Elserafy Peter Elserafy egal Reasoning for Chapter 22 ns ch22.05 Question Saf 10 v Check My Work Castaways Management, Inc, purchased the Castaways Motel in Miami Beach, Florida. The general manager of Castaways actively supported one of the two local unions that sought to represent the motel's employees. Employees were told that voting for the other union could result in demotions, transfers, and pay reduction. A number of employees who supported the other union were fired for "nonunion-related reasons" before a union election. Both unions evontcully Siled untair lbor practice dharges tCstays, and bhe National Labor Rdlations Board CNLRB found that Castaman had violated federal labor provisions by discharging employees for supporting union activity. Castaways was penalized by a cease-and-desist order that o motel premises By the time the initial order was affirmed by an NLRB panel, however, the motel had been demolished-although Castaways still exdisted as a business O required it to reinstate the discharged employees, award them back pay with interest, conduct a new election, and post notice of its violations on the entity. On appeal, Castaways argued that the NLRB's order was of no legal sienificanc because the motel no longer existed Would a court rule that Castaways Management could still be held liable to the fired workers? a Yes, uabor disputes are similar to workers compensation clams and must be paid regardiess of fau b. No. Fufiling the court's order is impossible c. Yes. Although the building n Aboogh buli d. No. The employers obligation for ts unliaotal bethavor was eiminated wth the destruchion of the building in which the wolations occurred no longer exsted, the company was soll in business and was responsible for its labor violations