Contemporary Cars, Inc Case

Contemporary Cars, Inc Case

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course name

Instructor name

Date

Contemporary Cars Inc Case

Contemporary Cars, Inc V. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court Of Appeal, Seventh Circuit, 814 F.3d 859(2016)

This case was fascinating. In most situations, whenever institutions feel threatened by some of their employees’ activities like forming unions, they embark on coercing the parties and, at times, laying them off. It was very insightful to read more about the case and find out how both the administrative law and the court of appeal ruled.

Contemporary cars Inc, together with other dealerships, are owned by AutoNation and are involved in selling and servicing cars. This case involved the dealership service department and the national labor relations board. The board filed a complaint allegation that the dealership had violated the national labor relation act. This happened after the dealership tried to challenge the company’s technician’s union certification, affirmed by the board.

The administrative law judge found that the dealership and AutoNation had acted unlawfully in several instances where they tried to frustrate their employees’ right to engage in a union. When the dealership and AutoNation filed a petition, the court of appeal reaffirmed the boards and the administrative law judge’s order. They denied a review of the petition and reinforced the board’s order.

I find this ruling to be a just and right decision since the dealership and AutoNation were all in the wrong by preventing the workers from forming a union, which is their right. They were also in the wrong by coercing the employees, interfering with the unions’ activities before the elections, and conducting layoffs for people they felt would be troublesome.

Students Response

The student’s post makes an interesting point about the Bailey v. TitleMax of Georgia, Inc case. This is because it identifies an area where employers constantly underreport the hours worked by an employee; thus, the case provides more insight into the employers’ rulings surrounding such situations and actions. From the first court ruling, I also agree that it’s surprising how the district court had decided in favor of the defendants. It was appropriate for the court of appeal to reverse the judgment since the employer was wrong. Employers should never try to get out of problems by altering company records, particularly if an employee has rendered the services. Despite the failure to complain, the courts should hold employers responsible for editing records and going against company policies like the case of TittleMax.

References