Question

Your professor has argued which of the following about the concept of “loyalty”?

disloyalty is the most elemental cause for discharging an employee

we should expect loyalty from the employer as well as the employee

loyalty is something that would become even more crucial if we were to fully implement the SWM business model

Answer 1

Your professor has argued which of the following about the concept of “loyalty”

The answer is disloyalty is the most elemental cause for discharging an employee

The Taft-Hartley Act in Section 7 provides that employees shall have the right to self-organization and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining. Section 8(a) (1) provides that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7. Section 10(c) gives the NLRB the power to order the employer to cease and desist and reinstate with pay an employee injured by an unfair labor practice. However, "no order of the Board shall require the reinstatement of any individual as an employee who has been suspended or discharged, or the payment to him of any back pay, if such individual was suspended or discharged for cause."'Generally, the employer has the right to discharge the employee for insubordination, disobedience and other causes so long as the employer does not, under cover of that right, intimidate or coerce his employees with respect to their rights to self-organization and representation. The cause of discharge must be separable from the concerted union activities which are protected by Section 7.4 The NLRB is given the responsibility of finding the facts concerning complaints of unfair labor practices.The NLRB, in the instant case, found "these tactics, in the circumstances of this case, were hardly less 'indefensible' than acts of physical sabotage" and refused to grant an order for reinstatement. The Court of Appeals remanded the cause to the Board for a further finding as to "unlawfulness" of the employees' acts, on the grounds that the findings of the Board were not in accordance with the Act since "indefensible" is vague and a finding that the acts were indefensible does not necessarily mean that they are not under the protection of Section 7 of the Act.7 The U.S. Supreme Court apparently disregarded the question of whether finding an act "indefensible" is sufficient cause to remove an employee from the protection of Section 7