NLRB - Community of Interest - What is my strategy?

Labor Practices
Student’s name
Institution
Labor Practices
Community of Interest
Workers with common interests and working on closely related domains can be collectively represented in a union based on their common attributes to form a bargaining unit. A bargaining unit should be as appropriate as possible to make the work of the employer and the union as smooth as it could be and there are frameworks to determine the appropriateness of a bargaining unit. The community of interest test is the most common test for bargaining unit determination. Community of interest with regards to labor practices refers to a common class of people who have shared grievances and can be allowed to act together as a unit as per the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] (Carre & Tilly, 2019). The community of interests test works in favor of both the workers union and the employer, only that the defining terms of the bargaining unit varies.
From the company's perspective, that is Mercedez Benz Stadium in the scenario provided, aspects such as the skill set required for a job, the working hours and patterns, and duties and responsibilities would be the key variables. Common supervision and the possibility of substituting employees with other sets of employees are the other important criteria to the employer while determining the appropriate bargaining unit. Going as per the criteria, Mercedez Benz Stadium would place the food prep workers, food servers, cashiers, and ticket sale workers as one community of interest based on the similarity of their duties and their working pattern. The security works have distinct roles from the employer's perspective and should be considered in a different community. The union, on the other hand, would prefer to form the bargaining unit based on the employees' regular contact with the employer and the distinct roles that cannot render them interchangeable. By using these criteria, the union would be able to represent the entire team of employees as a single bargaining unit.
ULP Response – Charge Against Windsor Hotel
Introduction
The need to protect the welfare of the workers and businesses and to allow viability of the US economy in which the private sector plays a big role triggered the US Congress to enact the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the year 1935. The NLRA serves to ensure mutual coexistence between the employers and employees by outlining the different responsibilities and rights of each party, allowing for collective bargaining, and discouraging both parties from engaging in what might account for Unfair Labor Practice [ULP] (NLRB, n.d.-b). In section 8 of the Act, NLRA outlines some of the employers’ conducts that are considered to be acts of unfair labor practices, and subsection 4 notes that “to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has file charges or given a testimony” amounts to ULP (NLRB, n.d.-b). Section 7 of the NLRA outlinse the rights of an employee, and among them is the right “to bargain collectively through the representative of their own choosing.” (NLRB, n.d.-b). The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), created by Congress in 1935, is an independent federal agency whose mandate is to enforce the NLRA to ensure that there are minimal or no cases of unfair labor practices in workplaces (NLRB, n.d.-a). Every employee, employer, or union is encouraged to file a charge with the NLRB in a case where they feel that their rights are being contravened.
Case Background Information
Windsor Hotel Best Western, located at Lamar Street Americus, GA 31709, is a full-service hotel offering a wide range of services: accommodation and onsite restaurant as well as luxury and social amenities including conference rooms, gym, swimming pool, business center among others. The hotel has over 50 employees exclusive of the management staff, some working full time while others working in shifts. Due to the huge number of guests and the high preference among the locals for the hotel services, employees are expected to always offer their best during the work time and to always clarify with the management any issues that might inhibit their efficiency within the hotel. As a law-abiding firm and cautious of any inconveniences that may arise due to disagreements between the company and the employees, Windsor Hotel has made public its intentions to uphold all the employees' rights as stipulated in the NLRA, including joining and partaking in labor union activities. The company, however, discourages employees from any kind of malice and abuse of the rights, bearing in mind that the company is also protected by the law.
Billy, an employee working full time for the hotel in the maintenance department, and a group of other employees, totaling 15, organized an industrial action in mid-January without following the due process of conflict resolution. The group, claiming the protests were aimed at airing their concerns on wages and compensation, discrimination, unfair treatment in shifts and role allocations from the hotel, went to the streets for three days running. The numbers, however, kept declining as other employees took the opportunity to attend their own businesses while others came back to work as soon as possible. On the fourth day, all the participants had absconded the strike and lowkey returned to work. A day later, the employees were summoned by the General Manager, Sally, to explain the cause of the unrest and justify their conduct as per the stipulation in the contract. None of the participants were able to back up their claims, and Sally, who is the manager in charge of the employees for the hotel, prescribed corrective actions to be taken against each of the employees. The participants' wages for the three days were deducted to compensate the other employees who worked overtime to cover up for their lost time. In addition, the participants were reminded of the consequences of participating in such unauthorized action that might escalate to contract termination.
Displeased with the general manager’s action, Billy embarked on a serious solicitation to influence the rest of the employees to partake in another strike and he managed to convince eleven of the employees who had participated in the initial strike. The group protested outside the vicinity, blocking every employee and visitor who was seeking entry into the premises. The subsequent strike lasted four days before Billy and the group retreated to work. To their surprise, Billy and the 11 other employees were greeted with contract termination letters from General Manager. As if not enough, Billy and a few other employees took their agitation to social media, talking ill of the hotel and launching personal attacks towards Sally. Billy further exacerbated the matter by verbally abusing and intimidating Sally outside the company premises.
Violations and Risks to Organization