Author Question: How did the court view the combination of workers with respect to their ... (Read 39 times)

tiffannnnyyyyyy · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

How did the court view the combination of workers with respect to their intent?

Question 2

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. In order for Pierre to work legally in the U.S., what would he have had to provide the management of the Spotted Frog?
a. a foreign passport with employment authorization b. an alien registration card
c. income tax forms from at least the previous three years
d. a foreign passport with employment authorization and an alien registration card
e. a foreign passport with employment authorization and an alien registration card and income tax forms from at least the previous three years

jrpg123456 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

The court states that the combination of workers can be viewed in two ways. The first is that they want to benefit themselves; the second is that they want to injure those who do not join in their combination. The court stated that the law condemns both.

Answer to Question 2

d