Please put together 250 conclusion very short

 

World Tea & Coffee, Inc. (World Tea & Coffee), owned and operated a retail store in the Westtown Shopping Plaza in Westtown, New York. Eleven other stores were located between the World Tea & Coffee store and the parking lot, which was owned by World Tea & Coffee, Inc.

 

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, AFL-CIO (Union), attempted to organize World Tea & Coffee's 230 employees, all who were non-union. When a full-page advertisement in the local newspaper failed to attract the employees to unionize, nonemployee union organizers entered World Tea & Coffee's parking lot and began putting handbills on car windshields parked in the employee parking lot area.

 

World Tea & Coffee's manager informed the union organizers that World Tea & Coffee prohibited their unionizing efforts of solicitation and placing handbills of any kind on the property and directed them to get off the property. After they left, World Tea & Coffee personnel removed the handbills. Union organizers repeated their handbill efforts in the parking lot on several following occasions. On each event, nonemployee union organizers were directed to get off the property, and the handbills were collected and removed.

 

The union filed a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). What should the result be in this case? Should the NLRB rule in favor of the union or in favor of the employer?  

 

_______________________________________ %%%%%%%%

 

ISSUE: The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, AFL-CIO (Union), attempted to organize WT&C's 230 employees who did belong to a union. The union was unsuccessful to attract WT&C's employees through a full-pg advert in the local newspaper. The next step, the non-employee union organizers went to WT&C's parkings lot and put handbills on car windshields parked in the employee parking lot area. WT&C's manager informed the union organizers that WT&C "did not allow their unionizing efforts of solicitation and placing handbills on any kind of the property and directed them to get off the property." Then WT&C's personnel removed the handbills. On several different occasions, the union orgnanizers repeated their efforts of placing handbills on vehicles in the employee parking lot area, and each time they were directed to get off the property, and handbills were collected and removed.

 

ANALYSIS:      This case was against the Union making efforts to reach a certain group of employees to unionize. The Union followed protocol (need reference) of exhausting avenues to reach said employees. The Union then went to a public area (parking lot in a shopping center), on different occasions and placed handbills on windshields but were asked by employer WT&C to leave the premises. WT&C then proceeded to remove and discard the handbills. The union filed a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

 

In the case "The Evolving Tension Between Property Rights and Union Access Rights--The California Experience," a supermarket owner sought a court injunction to prevent a labor union from picketing on the privately-owned walkway in front of the only customer entrance of its store.

"Although it was found the walkway fronting the supermarket's entrance was not a public forum under the California Constitution's provision protecting liberty of speech (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (a)), and 

therefore the store owner could regulate speech in that area. It further held that both the Moscone Act and section 1138.1, because they give speech regarding a labor dispute greater protection than speech on other subjects, violate the free speech guarantee of the federal Constitution's First Amendment and the equal protection guarantee of the federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. This court granted the union's petition for review." (need reference)

 

 

 

 

The WT&C case states the Union went to the plaintiffs' public parking lot exercising their right protected by said law . ‖ (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (a).) It also guarantees the rights to ―petition government for redress of grievances‖ and to ―assemble freely to consult for the common good.‖ (Id., art. I, § 3, subd. (a).) Through these provisions, this court has held, our state Constitution protects speech in privately owned shopping centers. 

 

This should support the Union placing handbills on cars in a parking lot.