Research Assignment Part II Paper No.________Fall 2019Issue:Did Creon commit an unfair labor practice?Employer Committed an Unfair Labor PracticeIs 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 organizationof 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 1court 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 PracticeIs 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 reasonablemeans 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 2p.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 notdirected an election or approved any consent-election agreement. As a result of the analogous 3facts 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