A Recognition Petition Six Weeks Out
A food processing plant employs 600 people across three shifts. A union has filed a petition for recognition covering 420 production employees, with a vote scheduled in six weeks. Since the petition, the plant manager has held weekly mandatory "informational" meetings at which he has said the company "may have to reconsider the expansion" if the union wins. Supervisors have been asking employees how they intend to vote and keeping lists of likely supporters. One supervisor told an employee that wages would be "frozen" for the duration of any bargaining. Separately, the site has real problems: night-shift pay is 7% below two local competitors, recorded safety incidents are up 22% year on year, and there is no anonymous complaint channel. The HR director reports directly to the plant manager and has raised concerns twice without effect.
1. What immediate actions do you take on the manager's and supervisors' conduct, and why does each matter?
Read the worked answer
Act on conduct first: it is the part with legal consequence and irreversible reputational damage.
- Stop the interrogation and the lists. Supervisors asking how employees intend to vote, and recording answers, is coercive under most labour law frameworks and will be the union's strongest evidence. Issue a written instruction the same day that no supervisor may ask about, record or discuss an individual's voting intention, and require acknowledgement.
- Correct the expansion statement. A manager saying expansion may be reconsidered if the union wins is a threat of reprisal. It can be corrected with a factual statement that expansion decisions are made on business grounds and are not conditional on the vote - but the correction must come from someone senior to the plant manager, not from him.
- Retract the wage-freeze claim. It was almost certainly made without authority, is both a threat and unreliable: the bargaining process determines terms and nobody can predict the outcome.
- Move the escalation line. HR reports to the plant manager, who is the source of the problem. Route election-period complaints to regional or global HR so employees and supervisors have a credible channel.
- Document everything - date, exact words, who heard them - while memories are fresh.
2. Where is the line between lawful employer communication and unlawful interference? Set out the principles you would use to brief supervisors.
Read the worked answer
The test is whether a communication is information or pressure. Most labour frameworks converge on four prohibitions, often summarised as TIPS: no Threats, no Interrogation, no Promises of benefit, no Surveillance.
Permitted. Stating facts - pay rates, benefit costs, the bargaining process and timetable; expressing the employer's opinion, including a preference to operate without a union, provided no threat accompanies it; correcting factual misstatements; explaining that a union cannot guarantee outcomes; answering questions consistently.
Prohibited. Predicting closure, job loss or frozen wages if the union wins; granting or promising new benefits during the campaign; asking employees about their own or others' views; monitoring attendance at union meetings; telling employees that voting is pointless.
The timing trap. The night-shift pay gap is real and documented. A wage increase decided on its merits before the petition can proceed. The same increase announced three weeks before the vote will be read as a promise, whatever the intent - if the decision is not already documented, defer it and say why.
Brief supervisors to one sentence: "I can't discuss how you vote, but I can answer questions about the process - here is the HR contact."
3. How do you handle the 7% night-shift pay gap and the 22% rise in safety incidents - during the campaign and afterwards?
Read the worked answer
Separate the issue from the timing.
During the campaign. Do not announce a pay adjustment; anything that looks like a response to the petition invites an interference claim. Safety is different. An incident rate up 22% year on year is a statutory and moral obligation, not a bargaining chip. Investigate the causes, publish the corrective actions and the timeline, and keep working on it through the election. No one can credibly argue that fixing a machine guard is election interference.
Build the record. Have Finance and HR document the night-shift differential against the two named competitors, night-shift vacancy and turnover, and the cost of the gap in overtime and agency cover. Date it. This is the analysis you would do with or without a union.
After the result. If the union is certified, the gap goes on the bargaining agenda and cannot be adjusted unilaterally. If it is not, make the adjustment in the next scheduled review cycle with the documentation showing it was market-driven.
Fix the complaint channel either way. The absence of an anonymous route is an independent risk and exactly the condition that produces petitions.