Research Assignment Part II Fall 2019 Paper No Issue Did Creon commit an unfair labor practice Employer Committed an Unfair Labor Practice Is rejecting a union organizer s request for a list of employee names and addresses an unfair labor practice In United Aircraft Corp v NLRB 434 F 2d 1198 2d Cir 1970 employees of the company lived in a greatly dispersed geographical area causing immense issues to union organizers in communicating with workers outside of company property p 1097 Of the 17 000 employees only 6 000 lived within seven miles of the plants while the rest of employees lived in 118 different towns in Connecticut and 27 different towns in Massachusetts ibid p 1202 Due to this information Unions could not contact employees at their homes which is a usual and important means of communication utilized in the organization of workers ibid p 1206 The union requested an up to date mailing list consisting of the addresses of the employees homes which would be used to send valuable communications about the benefits of labor organization ibid p 1202 The company denied this request ibid p 1201 The denial constitutes an unfair labor practice in violation of 8a 5 of the National Labor Relations Act which establishes that employers may not refuse to supply union s requests that are relevant or reasonably necessary for the performance of its representative functions ibid p 1201 The court deemed that the usage of direct mail was virtually the only way for the organizers to contact every employee and withholding such information is a violation of the NLRA because such information is necessary in the performance of its duties ibid p 1204 The 1 court held that the employer violated the NLRA ibid p 1204 In the case of Ismene Co v Creon many of the facts are analogous to United Aircraft Corp v NLRB In Ismene Co v Creon the workers are driven to work in company shuttles from the towns of Corinth and Thebes p 4 ll 4 7 Thebes is located 32 85 kilometers southbound of the company property and Corinth is located 55 1 kilometers northbound of the company property p 3 ll 8 14 The union organizer requested a list of the names and addresses of the employees at Creon and the request was rejected by the employer p 9 ll 2 6 The union organizer in Ismene Co v Creon faced analogous difficulties in contacting employees to those in United Aircraft Corp v NLRB because it is evident in both cases that the locations in which the employees lived were very dispersed and the information being withheld was reasonably necessary in the performance of the union s functions As a result of the analogous facts presented the holding from United Aircraft Corp v NLRB is applicable in the case of Ismene Co v Creon which deems that an unfair labor practice was committed Employer Did Not Commit an Unfair Labor Practice Is rejecting a union organizer s request for a list of employee names and addresses an unfair labor practice In Technology Service Solutions and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL CIO Local 11 332 NLRB 1096 2000 a union attempted to organize the workers of a company that serviced the states of Colorado New Mexico Oklahoma Kansas Missouri Arkansas Nebraska and Wyoming ibid p 1097 The employees were geographically dispersed amongst these states which prompted the union to contend that they had no reasonable means of communication with the employees ibid p 1097 The union had previously been provided an Excelsior list which contained the names and addresses of 63 employees ibid 2 p 1098 The union requested that the employer provide a list containing all the names and addresses for the employees in the south central region which management denied ibid p 1097 The union claimed that the withholding of this information was a violation of Section 8 a 1 rights within the National Labor Relations Act because there were no alternative means of communication with the employees ibid p 1100 The National Labor Relations Board stated that employers only have the obligation of providing unions with the employees names and addresses when the Board directs an election or approves the parties consent election agreement ibid p 1098 The unions have no such right to this information because the board had not directed an election ibid p 1098 The board held that the employer had not violated Section 8 a 1 of the NLRA by refusing to supply the union with the names and addresses of its employees ibid p 1102 In the case of Ismene Co v Creon many of the facts are analogous to Technology Service Solutions In Ismene Co v Creon the employees of Creon commute to work through shuttles provided by the company that serviced the towns of Thebes and Corinth p 4 ll 4 7 Thebes is located 32 85 kilometers southbound from the company property and Corinth is located 55 1 kilometers northbound of the company property p 3 ll 8 14 Similarly to Technology Service Solutions the employees reside in towns that are very far apart which posed great challenges for union representatives in contacting all of the employees at their homes p 3 ll 8 14 The union representative was given a list containing names and email addresses of Creon employees by an employee of Creon p 8 ll 14 15 The union requested that a list be provided with the names and addresses of all employees which Creon rejected p 9 ll 2 6 The employer is under no obligation to grant the union with a list of the employees names and addresses as determined in Technology Service Solutions because the Board had not directed an election or approved any consent election agreement As a result of the analogous 3 facts presented the holding from Technology Service Solutions is applicable in the case of Ismene Co v Creon which deems that the employer had not committed an unfair labor practice Do union representatives need to display more than minimal efforts to communicate with a company s employees in order to be granted access to a company s property In NLRB v Tamiment Inc 451 F 2d 974 3d Cir 1971 union representatives failed to organize members through using available means of communication The union contended that the employer violated Section 8 a 1 of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to allow access to its premises for union representatives attempting to organize its workers ibid p 795 Workers typically work six day weeks granting them one day of every week in which they can leave the company property to attend union informational meetings ibid p 799 Such meetings could be