Court Case: Miklin Enterprises v. NLRB
Topic: Federal Labor Laws
Link: https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/04/miklin-enterprises-inc-v-nlrb/
Case Study:
The National Labor Relations Act was designed to protect employees from receiving any backlash from employers for engaging in collective bargaining and going on strike. Section 7 of the NLRA specifically protects employees who “engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection”. Although this is true, this court case proves that not all types of engagement are protected under the NLRA.
In MikLin Enterprises v. NLRB, the Eighth Circuit applied a longstanding rule for employee “disloyalty”, stating that employees who publicly attack their employer “in a manner reasonably calculated to harm the company” are beyond the protections of the NLRA. When reaching their conclusion, the court misinterpreted “disloyalty” in a way that was inconsistent with the NLRA, as well as undermining the primary purpose of the law, which is to equalize bargaining power between employees and employers. An employee poster campaign began at the workplace, implying that customers may be exposed to unsafe food due to the employees’ inability to call in sick and stay home when ill. This act was caused by employees being forced to find a replacement if they were to ever call in sick, with no exceptions to the rule. This company policy was present in MikLin’s employee handbook. The posters were looked at as malicious by the company, and the company retaliated in the form of terminations.
This court case is related to the topic of federal labor laws. As it is stated, one of the foremost statutes regulating labor is the 1935 NLRA. This act established the rights of employees to engage in collective bargaining and to strike. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was created to oversee union elections and to prevent employers from engaging in unfair and illegal labor practices. It is also important to note that the NLRB has the authority to investigate employees’ charges of unfair labor practices, while also being able to file complaints against employers in question.
In summation, I leave you with several questions. What is your opinion on the court’s decision? Were the employees in the wrong for their poster campaign? Do you think the NLRA should have protections for employee’s who commit these kinds of acts? Let me know what you think and reply below!
