Search results

Unionized employees have the legal right to bring a union representative with them into an investigatory interview if they request it (“Weingarten rights”). This study aims to demonstrate that employers should allow nonunion employees the right to have a co-employee accompany them in a similar type of interview, if the employees make that request.

Not applicable.

There will be two benefits to allowing nonunion employees the right to bring a co-employee into an investigatory interview with them. First, this will be a form of organizational justice, and researchers demonstrated the benefits of employees perceiving that they receive organizational justice. Secondly, this will be a form of union substitution which should reduce employees’ desire for unionization.

Whereas most employers seek to avoid the application of Weingarten rights in nonunion workplaces, this article argues that organizations should grant employees this right voluntarily.

The decline of collective representation and rise of individual employment rights is a transformative shift in employment relations that has changed the landscape of workplace dispute resolution. I propose a model that seeks to provide a new approach to understanding how workplace dispute resolution functions in the era of individual employment rights.

The model I propose focuses the analysis on the elements that connect the structure of rights that are enacted to the patterns of employment practices in the workplace.

My argument is that the systems for enforcement of individual employment rights and the mechanisms of representation for the employees affected are as important as the substantive rights themselves in determining the impact of the individual rights regime. These three elements combine to determine the degree to which the individual employment rights serve as an effective source of power for employees in relation to their employers.

The establishment of these sources of power is what then results in the individual rights regime producing an effect on the employers’ patterns of practices in the workplace and ultimately determining the nature and character of the employment relationship.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) creates rights for covered employees, defines conduct that violates those rights, and deems that conduct an unfair labor practice. But while given broad remedial powers under the Act, the Board's options were curtailed by the Supreme Court's limit on the use of deterrence as an express remedial justification. The Board was left with a strongly make-whole, i.e., ex-post, focus to undo the consequences of a violation.

Put differently, the current NLRA remedies reflect a pay-or-play philosophy. The goal is restoration after the fact, using ex-post remedies to give parties the benefit or status quo that they expected. An actor willing to pay may use a cost–benefit analysis and strategically choose to violate the Act, accepting the make-whole remedies later. But the Act created ex-ante statutory rights, not agreed-upon contractual terms. By statutory enactment, employees are given something of value deemed worthy of protection. Assigning value to compliance with the law in the first instance not only prevents sometimes irreparable harm but also reaffirms the inherent value of the right itself.

The impact of the Board's limited remedies is therefore a broad value-driven one. Without ex-ante deterrence, the available ex-post make-whole remedial options make a normative statement about individuals' rights under the Act: those rights may not be inherently worth enough to incentivize legal compliance. The make-whole focus can imply that financial compensation for the portion of harm that can be calculated and “undoing” some nonfinancial effects is sufficient. There is little drive to deter infringement before the fact. By examining the remedial philosophy behind contrasting approaches in the common law of torts and contract, this Article asserts that the current remedial strictures and framework undermine both the Act and the worth of its rights in the eyes of the public and the employees who hold them.

The purpose of this paper is to identify dimensionality and evaluate effect of corporate human rights social responsibility (CHRSR) on employee job outcomes among three leading Kenya's horticultural exporters based in Naivasha, Kenya.

Exploratory and explanatory survey was utilized on a sample of 450 employees selected using a multistage sampling technique. Structured questionnaire was used to extract both nominal and ordinal data, the latter's items were anchored on a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive, principal component analysis (PCA) and multiple regression was used to analyze the data.

PCA of 32 items representing CHRSR yielded ten components while that of employee job outcomes yielded seven components reflecting the multidimensional nature of the constructs. Results showed that the selected firms have largely satisfied both HR and moral expectations. Regression results showed generally significant effect of CHRSR on employee job outcomes such as employee retention, satisfaction, commitment and pride.

A business case for CHRSR exists. This implies that compliance with the law, adoption of HR-related corporate social responsibility (CSR) is critical in enhancing employee job outcomes and overall organization performance.

The study integrates CSR and HR into CHRSR. It demonstrates its multidimensional nature and utilizes statistical analysis to explore its relationship with employee job outcomes in an African export sector context and argues that CSRHR is more critical in Africa than more regulated contexts.

What is the best way for service organizations to evaluate and motivate service employees so that customers are retained and new customers are attracted? What motivates service employees to deliver high quality service? Are there actions a service organization can take, e.g. way of evaluating, training, and rewarding employees, which encourage them to perform to the organization’s advantage? Answers to these questions would enable a service organization to formulate a system that links human resource management policies to desired service employee performance, thus enhancing customer perceptions of service quality and organizational financial outcomes. This research investigated organizational citizenship behavior, with its framework of organizational rights and responsibilities, to explore these issues. The research shows that service employee perceptions of how they are treated by the service organization, i.e. what organizational rights they receive, are positively associated with organizational citizenship behaviors. Furthermore, it demonstrates that these behaviors result in more effective service delivery to organizational standards and enhanced customer perceptions of service quality.

This paper aims to explore the extent to which unionized employees are dissatisfied in Chinese Enterprise Trade Unions (CETUs) when they perceive high levels of the triple-role conflicts, as well as whether rights expectations will moderate these relationships. The authors define CETUs' triple-role conflicts as the extent to which CETUs and their cadres prioritize fulfilling the roles of preserving social stability (“peace”) and/or maintaining the production order (“production”) over protecting worker's rights and interests (“workers” rights).

Pilot study developed the scales via both qualitative and quantitative studies, which include item generation using the transcript of individual interviews with 36 informants, and exploratory factor analyses with 106 respondents. The study used a sample of 327 employees from more than 20 firms in North and Southwest China.

Results indicate high reliability and validity of the scales and provide largely consistent supports for our hypotheses: three dimensions of triple-role conflicts are negatively related to employees' satisfaction in CETUs, and rights expectations moderate these relationships.

This study developed three scales to respectively measure CETUs' triple-role conflicts, rights expectation and satisfaction in CETUs. More importantly, the findings shed light on the moderating mechanism of rights expectation in the relationships between triple-role conflicts and satisfaction in CETUs.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

Discusses the long existing and confusing problems of establishing the relationship of who is, and who if not, a dependent worker. Reflects developments which have occurred in British law as it affects the employment field, plus an evaluation and analysis of some of the different types of employment relationships which have evolved by examining, where possible, the status of each of these relationships. Concludes that the typical worker nowadays finds himself in a vulnerable position both economically and psychologically owing to the insecurity which exists.

The article addresses the tension between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the right to work in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, it explores the operation of corporations in adopting policies of mandatory vaccination and the role of the courts regarding these CSR patterns.

The article examines court case studies of CSR practices regarding unvaccinated employees during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel and the United States.

The findings show that the Israeli system adopted the regulating for individual discretionary CSR approach, whereas the American system adopted the regulating for ethical-public CSR approach. Adopting the latter infringes upon the right to work of unvaccinated employees. While in Israel, the possibility of compelling employees to vaccinate is denied, in the American model, mandatory vaccination is possible. As opposed to the American model, in the Israeli model, there is an obligation to consider proportionate measures to isolate the employees while allowing them to continue working.

The article introduces two possible notions of regulating CSR in times of the pandemic – regulating for individual discretionary CSR which is labor-oriented and regulating for ethical-public CSR which is focused on public aspects. While the former posits that corporations should advance individual interests of employees and their right to work, the latter claims that corporations should advance the public interest in health. Following the problems resulting from the Israeli and American cases, the article draws on the lines for a suggested approach that courts should embrace.

Examines the situation in the UK in some detail with regard to three aspects of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union. Looks at the aims, together with an analysis and appraisal. Considers, first, information and consultation rights with regards to the transfer of undertakings and redundancies, followd by the right to collective action and, lastly, protection in the event of unjustifiable dismissal. Presents case law throughout as examples. Concludes that the UK has attempted to prevent social and economic rights for workers from being included in the final charter despite fierce opposition. Compares this view together with the UK suspicion of Europe against the views of the other member states.