Parties:

Summary of Case Study

Plaintiffs: Stephanie Shelby Defendants: Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 872, AFL-CIO Facts:

Plaintiff Stephanie Shelby was a member of the LIUNA (Union), Local 872, AFL- CIO. The plaintiff alleged that LUINA unfairly placed her lower on the list for hire even after she made multiple attempts to update her skills bump up her placement on the list. On October 4, 2011, Shelby arrived at the hire shelter and got in a confrontation with the hiring shelter manager. The manager called the police and read her a statement about trespassing. She was then escorted off the premises by the police and was required to return to the shelter with a police escort upon returning.

Procedure:

After the incident on October 4, 2011, the plaintiff Shelby filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Union Board. She alleged that the hiring hall had breached its duty of fair representation. The Judge on the case found Shelby's removal on October 4, 2011 valid and did not agree with the plaintiffs claim that there was unfair labor practices. The National Labors Relations Board agreed with the Judges' ruling. On May 3, 2013, the decision and order were granted in favor of the defendant.

Issue:

There are two issues in this case. The first issue of the case the issue of whether the defendant had the right to remove Shelby from the premises during her outburst on October 4, 2011. The second and main issue was if the defendant was liable for the breach of duty of fair representation by continuing to hold the trespass order against Shelby.

Explain the applicable law(s):

In this case, the Wagner Act, also known as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is most applicable. The Wagner Act was created to encourage the formation of labor unions. It guarantees the right of workers to organize and outlines the legal framework for unions (Doyle, 2020). Section 8(b)(1) of the NLRA prohibits restraint or coercion of employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights (Browne, 2017, p. 548). This section is what the plaintiff argues is where the defendant violated the rights of the union.

Holding & Reasoning:

Due to Shelby's outburst on October 4, 2011 at the hiring hall, and her inability to calm down when asked, it was believed she had no basis for her lawsuit. It was found that it was not common behavior at the hiring hall for a member to curse and confront a dispatcher so aggressively. In the setting of Shelby's outburst, her continuous screaming, repeated use of expletives and persistent refusal to calm down, justified the respondent to request her removal from the property. The court agreed the respondent's actions did not violate any act or law. Shelby being escorted off the property did not impair her employment. Even being required to have an escort every time she returned to the hiring hall, she was still able to garner employment. It was determined Shelby did not suffer any loss of pay or benefits. The reasoning of the court is valid in this case. The hiring hall provided by the union is a tool that Shelby was not prevented from using even after the need for an escort among entry.

Change this article in your own word!!!