In my opinion, the company’s approach towards the overt and covert salt application by the members was in line to the recommended counter-salting steps to be followed by employers. The company treated both the applicants fairly by sticking to the qualification that was required during the recruitment process. To start with, the company had put forward to the applicants (including the covert and overt applicants) clear job descriptions and requirements. Field technicians were the only unskilled laborers who could be employed to work in the company as the truck drivers and the field supervisors were required to carry with them their certificates and driving licenses. Both the applicants from the union never had the required driving licenses neither did they have the field knowledge. The applicants also never intimated to the company that they belonged to a union.
Lack of qualifications implied that they did not have the necessary skills and the training that were necessary for the positions. The company had the full power to eliminate any applicant from the hiring process without considering their application for employment. The decision either to recruit the overt salts sent by the union was optional to the company. It had no legal obligation listen to them since on top of being unqualified they brought themselves at the time when the company was not in need workers. Lastly, being a union member does not give any added advantages to its members during the hiring process in any company. The decision on whose application to consider and whose application to down is left at the disposal of the employer. Trade unions are may have a say on the issues affecting the already recruited members but have no authority on influencing the hiring process of a company.
None of the two applicants (coverts and overt) will satisfy the NLRB ruling that the applicants for employment must be genuinely seeking for employment for them to qualify for protection. To start with, the decision by the coverts to apply for the positions announced by the company was initiated by the union. It was not an individual decision. On the other hand, both the coverts and the overt lacked the advertised qualifications for the positions. They never carried the necessary documents that were required for the interview. Lastly, on top of failing to carry the required documents for the interview, the company has the right to question on the seriousness of the overt about seeking the job since company had not announced any vacant positions during the time of filing their application
The company’s opposition of becoming a union shop does not in any way relate to the decision by the company to decline the over salt’s application. Considering the fact that none of them was qualified for the positions that they were applying for and the fact that they were making applications just a few days after the hiring process had been carried out, the company had enough reason to decline their application then. However, the receptionist agreed to file their application so that they could be contacted in future should need to arise. This shows that the company treated all the applicants equal without considering it they were members of trade unions or not. The decision to recruit the coverts was by chance since their applications were made at the right time and even the company never knew that they were members of a union.