MasTec Advanced Technologies - Case Study Example

MasTec Advanced TechnologiesAbstractCompensation and workplace safety are laws or regulations that safeguard workers from exploitation from the employers. Labor laws are set to make work relationship good and in case of internal disputes resolutions are reached before third party consultation (Thomason, Burton, & Schmidle, 2001). The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) governs the employer and employees issues. The case study of MasTec Advanced Technologies dispute gives a real legal case that NLRA adherence assisted to resolve.

IntroductionThis study analyses legal issues in Respondent Advanced Technologies case, which involved 26 workers being terminated due to third party involvement in the company and employees disputes. The technicians who were terminated had participated in the newscast due to dissatisfaction of their compensation formula. MasTec had implemented a compensation formula in response to DirecTV’s disapproval of MasTec’s performance. The Law protects employers from employees’ disparaging statements to third parties.

However, the extent and legality of that participation has protection, so in both cases law act as a check point to avoid unnecessary battles and unfair treatment to either parties (National Labor Relations Board, 1999). Purpose statementThe rationale of this case study is to analyze legal issues and implications that are witnessed in the MasTec case scenario. First, question that draws attention is whether there was a legal issue. Legal issue displayed in the case; labor law, compensation and workers affairs, are protected in the NLRA (Cihon, 2013).

It was evident that the technicians were terminated without considering the Act conclusively. In accordance to the Act, employees’ communication to third parties in an attempt to get support from them is protected. This protection is upheld where communication is about ongoing disputes between the employer and employees yet no meaningful agreement has been achieved, and communication is not reckless, disloyal or maliciously untrue. The initial court ruling upheld the discharge citing unprotected claim on the side of the employees; however, eventual ruling considered the communication aspect and found that the employees were protected thus overruled the initial verdict.

Whether the companies could have shown they suffered substantial losses in sales and revenues due to the news program, the outcome of the case could have been similar. This is because the companies acted on bad faith and lack of integrity by forcing the technicians to do whatever it take to ensure installation of receivers were done. The Consumer’s Act protects customers from such dishonesty. Instead of the companies getting relief by claiming substantial losses, many customers could present the compensation demands.

In this case, the losses are the companies own makings and technicians could not be blamed of dishonest act of employers. The Consumer Guarantees Act displays guarantees that services and goods must meet when provided to respective consumers. In this case, it is evident the companies were violating the Act (Drake, 2007).In my opinion, I concur with the decision to overturn the ruling since the technicians demonstrated their rights as upheld in the Act. Upholding the initial ruling would have been unfair and against the regulation.

ConclusionThe case study is a typical legal issue that many faces in employment scenarios. In Jefferson standard, the ruling was biased since it favored employers and unfairly treated employees. Afterward ruling justified the scenario to ensure employers accountability of their actions. In order to guarantee to employees the fullest liberty in exercising the rights protected by the NLRA Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of joint bargaining was constituted as craft unit, the employer unit, plant unit, or/and subdivision.

ReferencesCihon, P. J. (2013). Employment and labor law. S.l.: South-Western.Drake, N. (2007). Conveyancing law handbook. Auckland, N.Z: CCH New Zealand.National Labor Relations Board (1999) Decisions and Orders of the National Labor Relations Board, Government Printing OfficeThomason, T., Burton, J. F., & Schmidle, T. P. (2001). Workers' compensation: Benefits, costs, and safety under alternative insurance arrangements. Kalamazoo, Mich: W.E. Upjohn Inst. for Employment Research.