• First Central Bank Of River City - Harvard Case Study

    Pages: 8

    An 8 page paper that discusses the legal and ethical issues of this case. The issue is the union attempting to organize employees of the bank. Actions are used as evidence for the legal and ethical issues. Bibliography lists 4 sources.

    File: MM12_PGbnkhvd.rtf

    Send Me This Paper »

     

    Sample Text:
    would be held in 30 days to determine if the employees wanted the International Metalworkers Union (IMU) to represent them. Kramer arranged a meeting with Philip Smith, the banks labor  attorney, Steve Johnson, the banks vice-president of Human Resources, and other executives of the bank. The purpose of the meeting was to review what the bank and union had done  thus far and whether the bank should take any other actions prior to the election. The bank was the largest in the area with 18 offices. However, employees earned between  15 and 25 percent less than comparable jobs at the local auto plant and salary was even lower than at two smaller banks in the area. While salary increases were  given based on merit, there were minimum and maximum salaries at each of the ten job classifications within the bank. Employees were also paid overtime for any hours over 38  in a week. The bank had a reputation of never laying off employees and of being a place where a person with only a high school diploma could rise  to management positions. So, there was strong job security. Further, the bank offered a profit sharing plan following two years of employment. The bank also had a generous sick leave,  vacation leave and death benefit plan. Employees paid for their own health insurance, though. The Union violated the law a number of times. First, membership cards were found at different  teller stations by the guard, John Simpson. Then, many employees reported to their supervisors they had received letters from the IMU at their home addresses. An employee had to have  given a printout with all employees and their addresses to the union. About a month after the first letter, all employees received a second letter telling them their response to 

    Back to Results