top of page
  • Writer's pictureStudentGuiders

HRM 4304-Collective Bargaining - Unit III Case Study

Updated: Aug 17, 2022

Read Case Study 4-1, “Salting,” on pages 155-156 of your textbook. Then, address the following:

  1. Explain how the company’s treatment of both the “covert” and “overt” salts applications for jobs compares to the recommended counter-salting steps for employers.

  2. Would either the “covert” or the “overt” salts in this case satisfy the NLRB ruling that applicants for employment must be genuinely interested in seeking employment before claiming protection under the NLRA?

  3. Does the company’s opposition to becoming a union shop indicate that there was anti-union animus in refusing to consider the “overt” salts for employment?


Salting is the strategy in which unions encourage their union members to join the organizations that are non-unionized. Once they seek employment and they obtain it at this organization, they will promote unionization at this firm(Projects, 2020). The union will supplement their earnings. This supplementing will ensure that their salaries are at par with the union members.

Question one

There was the right treatment of the, “overt,” and, “covert,” salts in the company premises. This is because the salting and the counter salting practices in the organization were approved. In this case, the receptionist did not do any wrong. She availed the correct information on how to apply for the jobs at the organization and even told them about the conditions of employment including the HAZMAT recommendations and also the driver’s license recommendations.

The receptionist was also gracious enough to inform them that they were not hiring for the field technician positions but they can make their applications and she would keep them in a file so that they can be considered in future. The recommended counter salting procedures are that the organization should create an engaging culture and keep the accurate interview records so that the company can have all the evidence in the event a charge is brought upon it by the NLRB. When the employees are properly trained and specifically informed on unions, the salting efforts will not be successful. The actions of the company therefore cannot be seen as anti-union animus because if these two people possessed the required documentations, the company would have considered and accepted their applications.

Question two

The inability of the prospective employees to meet the required job standards and qualification meant that the two workers were not genuinely interested in the job positions they initially showed interests in. The National Labor Relations Board rules that the employees must be genuinely interested in the specific job applications in the organizations they are seeking the employments from before they are put under protection of the National Labor Relations Act(National Labor Relations Board, n.d.). It cannot be said that they actively sought for employment because the two hazardous materials endorsement and the Commercial Driver’s license certificate were the initial qualifications that one had to meet before they could be considered for employment (Heavrin & Carell, 2013). . If they were serious about the positions in the company, they would have gone beyond their comfort and sought those certificates because it does not matter whether someone is unionized or not, lack of a commercial drivers certificate does not give a person a license to become a commercial truck driver.

Question three

The company’s opposition in becoming a union shop is shown in the way the receptionist addressed the overt union members. She said that the company was not interested in becoming a union shop and therefore the two employees were not welcome to set up a union shop in the organization. This is a slight anti- union animus because the company expressed its positions strongly regarding the overt union members compared to the, “ covert,” ones who just pretended that they were coming to the organization to seek employment opportunities (Heavrin & Carell, 2013). Despite this, the company did follow the stipulated guidelines and there was no evidence to suggest that it discriminated against the two employees who overtly displayed their union status and they wanted to become employees in the organization. The defense that the company can put in place is that these employees were not qualified and whether they were for the unions or not they would not have been considered for employment at the organization.


Heavrin, C., & Carrell, M. R. (2013). Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining (10th Edition).

Pearson Education (US).

ational Labor Relations Board. (n.d.). Discriminating against employees because of their union activities or sympathies (Section 8(a)(3)) | National Labor Relations Board.

Projects (2020, May 7). Union Salting And What You Need To Know. UnionProof.

Recent Posts

See All

HRM 4304, Collective Unit II Journal Based on the reading in this unit, private sector employees have the right to strike. Reflect on...

HRM 4304, Collective Unit III Journal Review Profile 4.2 on page 137. After reviewing, reflect on union avoidance strategies by...

HRM 4304, Collective Unit IV Journal Negotiation can be very time consuming; however, most organizations will typically have a certain...

Your paragraph text(10).png
bottom of page