Question

In Teamsters Local Union No. 523 v. National Labor Relations Board, where a sales representative complained of unfair labor practices after he was demoted by the union when his employer consolidated its distribution so that the union would represent all distribution workers, rather than only some, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that:

a.

the union and employer were discriminating against the employee, but not in a way that encouraged union participation

b.

the union and employer were discriminating against the employee in a way that encouraged union participation

c.

the union and employer were not discriminating against the employee in a way that encouraged union participation

d.

the employee should have to join the union or pay agency fees if he wanted to keep his seniority position

e.

the employee was behind in his agency fee payments, so he had no claim to keeping his position.

Question 2:

In Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, concerning the liability of a firm for discrimination that occurs in the workplace when a hostile environment is created by a supervisor, the Supreme Court held that:

	a.	the firm may be vicariously liable even if the employee suffered no adverse job consequences
	b.	the firm is strictly liable
	c.	the supervisor is personally liable, but the firm is not
	d.	the firm is liable only if it is shown that the employee suffered adverse job consequences
	e.	none of the other choices

Answer 1

1. a. the union and employer were discriminating against the employee, but not in a way that encouraged union participation

In this context, the employee was discrimintaed both by the employer and the union becuase there was lack of union participtaion from him.

2. a. the firm may be vicariously liable even if the employee suffered no adverse job consequences

In this context the organizations are responsible if the supervisors are not being subjected to adverse working conditions and the employee harassed is subjected to a condition that is adverse.