Slick Willie Owens had always claimed himself to be independent, believing that he never had to rely on anyone else to help him. Willie started out with the Walleye Productions plant in Walleye, Florida as a laborer 14 years ago and worked his way to a fork lift operator and then to shipping clerk. Back in 2008 dur- ing the economic recession, Walleye laid off about one third of its employees; the supervisors selected employ- ees who would not be laid off. There were many com- plaints among the more senior employees that the company did not give consideration to their long ser- vice with the company, instead, the supervisors retained the ones they believed to be the hardest work- ers, many of whom were the youngest, even some who had just been hired.

In 2009, the word got around that Walleye execu- tives had made a secret trip to Mexico to investigate having some of the manufacturing done in Mexico. Of course, this information outraged many of the employees who had worked for the company for many years. Soon afterwards, some of the more senior employees talked about contacting a union. They con- tacted the International Union Representative of the Industrial Union Workers (IUW) who represented employees at another plant in Walleye. The Interna- tional Union Representative called for a meeting at the union lodge and about 40 Walleye employees showed up and signed union authorization cards. Two weeks later the IUW had 150 signatures on the union authorization cards.

The IUW requested to be recognized, but the com- pany denied recognition. The IUW then filed for a representation election with the NLRB. During the campaign in the late 2011 and early 2012, Slick Willie continued to claim his independence, that he had made it this far without any union, and that he didn’t need the union now. During the campaign when Willie was approached by co-workers in the shipping department who supported the union, Willie told them: “Even if the union gets in, I don’t have to join. The union still has to represent me. I get everything you guys get, and I don’t have to pay them one red dime.”

After a lively organizing campaign, the employees voted by 174 to 144 to be represented by the IUW. Afterwards, the IUW was successful in negotiating a

three-year contract in the fall of 2012. The IUW and Walleye Productions developed a fairly productive, cooperative relationship from the beginning. Both par- ties have acted professionally in dealing with each other. The company maintained its policy of going strictly by the rules. The company agreed to the grievance-arbitration procedure and that discipline must be for just cause. The IUW accepted the com- pany’s right to formulate reasonable rules for employee behavior. One of these formulated rules for employee behavior was: “Being under the influence of illegal drugs and alcohol during working hours will be cause for immediate termination.”

On January 1, 2015, Slick Willie attended a New Year’s party to watch the football bowl games. Willie was surrounded by his old buddies who were drinking beer and smoking a little marijuana. Willie knew that he had to report to work the following day but yielded to the temptation when he was offered a smoke. Since he had been drinking a little too much, Willie smoked a little too much. Knowing Walleye had a random testing policy, Willie believed that his chances of being tested were slim. Willie was wrong. Willie was selected to be tested and Willie tested positive. The results were con- firmed and Willie was terminated by the end of the day.

Willie filed a grievance and claimed that the smok- ing of marijuana was a single incident, that it was his first offense, and that he was a long-term employee with a good service record of 14 years. The company’s position was that the rules were reasonable, clear, and communicated to all employees. Willie had tested pos- itive and the company’s position was that it could not make an exception for Willie because the company would without doubt be faced with similar situations later and not applying the rule now would have an effect of nullifying the rule.

Willie went to the union to represent him. Willie claimed that the union had a duty to represent all bar- gaining unit employees and he held a job within the bargaining unit. At the next membership meeting, there was a backlash among the membership to repre- senting Willie because they remembered what Willie had said during the organizing campaign and that he has never joined the union. The members claimed that here is a guy who spoke out against the union, never joined the union, and never paid a "red dime" to support the union. Now Willie wants the membership to pay the union’s attorney to represent him in arbitration and pay the union's share of the arbitration, a total amount which could rise to as much as $5,000. A discussion took place at the meeting and the following proposal was made by a member: The union would represent Willie in the grievance procedure and arbitration and Willie would pay for his representation costs, for example, the legal fees, the union’s share of the arbitration costs. The union position was that this proposal as adopted would meet its legal duty of representing Willie. The membership voted approval without a negative vote.

1. What are Willie's arguments which will required the union to represent him without paying any money?

2. What are the union members argument which would require Willie to pay for the costs of representing him?

3. Is this adopted proposal fair to Willie? To memeber of the Union?

4. If the union refuses to represent Willie and pay for the union's attorney and its share of the arbitration costs and then Willie files a charge against the union wih the NLRB, how will the NLRB rule?

5.  If you were a member of the union, how would you have voted on the proposal? Why?

6. If you are a memeber of managment and learn about Willie's position and the union's position, what would you do?