Of Labor Relations . . .

Lechmere owns and operates a retail store in a shopping plaza in Connecticut. There are thirteen smaller stores between Lechmere's store and the parking lot, which is owned by Lechmere. In June 1987, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union AFL-CIO (Union), attempted to organize Lechmere's 200 employees, noe of whom belonged to a union. After a full-page advertisement in a local newspaper drew little response, nonemployee union organizers entered Lechmere's parking lot and began placing handbills on windshields of cars parked in the employee section of the parking lot. Lechmere's manager informed the organizers that Lechmere prohibited solicitation or handbill distribution of any kind on the property and asked them to leave. They did so, and Lechmere personnel removed the handbills. The union organizers renewed their handbilling effort in the parking lot on several subsequent occasions, but each time they were asked to leave the handbills were removed. The Union filed a grievance with the NLRB. The NLRB ruled in favor of the union and ordered Lechmere to allow handbilling in the parking lot. The court of appeals affirmed. Lechmere appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its appeal the U. S. Supreme Court held that under the facts of the case, Lechmere could prohibit nonemployee union organizers from distributing leaflets to employees in the store's parking lot, effectively reversing previous decisions. In making their decision, the Supreme Court cited the general rule that an employer cannot be compelled to allow distribution of union literature by nonemployee union organizers on its property. The Court noted, however, that an exception applies if the employees would otherwise live and work beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them. The Supreme Court held that this exception did not apply in this case. The Court cited the fact that the employees lived in a metropolitan area and that the union could advertise in the media and could stand on the public area adjoining Lechmere's parking lot to inform the employees of the union's organizational effort. The Court concluded that access to employees, not success in winning them over, is the critical issue.

Generally, employers do not have to allow nonemployee union organizers to solicit on their property if the union can reach the employees in other ways, such as through media.

A Good HR Practitioner ?

I am often asked – “What does it take to be a good HR practitioner?”

A successful HR practitioner is one who aligns their tasks with business strategies, is service oriented but time efficient in doing so, can add real value by being proactive to a situation at-hand, and provide open and frank advice on issues that affect the company culture or staff morale.

Now, some might suggest that being described as a people person or warm and fuzzy, makes for a good HR practitioner. The days of warm and fuzzy are gone. In today’s fast-paced and highly competitive economy, Human Resources must focus on delivering financial value. This requires that an HR practitioner must throw-off the shackles of “warm and fuzzy” and exhibit an ability to work in line with the business and be an integral part of the business strategic plan. By understanding the overall objectives of the business, and HR practitioner can avoid becoming overly bureaucratic, and focus on doing what’s ultimately right for the business and the unit.

Truth-be-told, not many people would want to work in HR. Go ahead, ask any employee, be they from marketing, sales, accounting, or customer service. The answer, time-and-time again is simple: no way. Why is this? Because HR practitioners must make difficult decisions, decisions that must balance the human element and corporate strategies of cost-effectiveness and profitability.

Generally speaking a good HR practitioner must:

• Understand problems assigned
• Stay competent and professional through self-directed study and research
• Maintain high standards of personal honesty and integrity (avoid gossip and excessive personal interaction with others – this will hinder one’s ability to make decisions)
• Consider the personal interests, welfare, and dignity of all employees affected by recommendations and actions – and, first and foremost, from a legal perspective
• Ensure organizations maintain high regard for public interest and personal interests and dignity of employees
• Prove through effective measurements how HR is contributing to the organization
  

Further a good HR practitioner must be equipped with following skills:

• Staffing (HR planning, recruitment and selection)
• Human resource development (Capacity development of all staff members)
• Award judiciously compensation and benefits to employees according to organizational rules and regulations
• Can take care of safety and health of employees
• Maintain a “professional” relationship with employees, and not a “personal” one
• Work with managers to care of employees’ professional growth
• Properly maintain the records of employees and his routine official matters
• Conduct HR research (providing a HR information base, designing and implementing employee communication system).
• Understand the interrelationship of HR functions

Following are skills required of a good HR practitioner:

• Effective written communication skill
• Effective verbal communication skill
• Effective presentation skill
• Good time management (keep meetings short and to the point; set aside for the administrivia as well as the strategic)
• Conflict management skill
• Team building
• Stress Management
• Rationale decision making (remove emotions from your decisions)
• Gender awareness
• Strong motivation and initiative skill; be self-directed; have a passion for your profession
• Coordination with other departments and organizations

I am reminded of an HR person who resigned and left a company. As she did so, and during her going-away party, it was clear that this person was popular. One manager even remarked, “I’m jealous as to how popular she was.” That’s fine; that’s very nice. But was she effective in her job? Can she name one thing, one major contribution she made where she put her stamp on the organization, where she successfully took initiative on a grand scale? Or, was she a great person to talk to, to share things with, so when you walked away you felt good? And, was she an HR person who wore a mask? In other words, did she treat employees one way to their face but another way behind their back? And, when it came time to make decisions, which mask did she wear? You see, there's a big difference between a strategic person and a “player.”

As I observed the going-away party, watching as many laughed with her I couldn’t help but think – did these people really know how she felt about them? No, of course not. At the going-away party she was wearing the appropriate mask. Always – the player.

The road to HR greatness is littered with the bodies of “mask wearers,” those who hearken back to HR’s roots, when the factory owner placed a secretary in charge of putting a picnic table outside so the workers had a nice place to eat lunch, or coordinating a birthday party for an employee. Yes, it was a simple time then, and yes, these were contributions – but not of historical grandeur. Such contributions pale in comparison to the contributions of the accountant, the marketer, or the sales representative. The “mask wearer” does not understand what HR is all about and sets the profession back hundreds of years.

As the person left her going-away party, there were some however, those who have an idea about what HR is truly about, those who get it - and these individuals did not feel a sense that the company was suffering a loss. One person even said, “I’m going to miss the gossip.” A senior executive said, “Nice person but can’t remember anything she did of any significance.”

When it's all-said-and-done, a good HR practitioner is in it for one thing, and one thing only – to contribute to organizational effectiveness. For those that cannot – please - just get out of the way.

The Independent Contractor

Here’s a great case that helps to explain the difference between an independent contractor and employee.

Jose Torres was a self-employed gardener, doing business under the name Jose Torres Gardening Service. From 1984 until June 1988, Torres performed weekly general gardening services at several homes in Torrance, California, including the home of Michael and Ona Reardons. In June 1988, the Reardons employed Torres to trim a 70 foot tall tree located in their front yard. At 11:00 AM on the morning of June 20, 1988, Torres arrived at the Reardons’ home with one helper. The reardons were not at home. David Boice, Reardons’ next door neighbor, cautioned Torres to take care cutting a large branch 25 feet from the ground that overhung the roof of Boice’s house.

When Torres was ready to cut the branch, Boice came outside to hold a rope that was tied to the branch, with the intention of pulling the branch away from his house as it fell. Torres positioned himself on the branch next to the trunk and began to cut at a point just beyond where he was standing. According to Torres, Boice pulled on the rope when Torres was not expecting a pull. As a result, Torres’s chain saw kicked back and Torres fell from the tree, landing on his back. Torres was rendered a paraplegic as a result of his fall.

Torres sued the Reardons to recover for his injuries, alleging that he was their employee and therefore could recover from them for failing to provide him with workers’ compensation insurance. The Reardons countered this argument by saying that Torres was an independent contractor to whom they were not liable. The trial court agreed with the Reardons and granted their motion for summary judgment. Torres appealed. The court of appeals held that Torres was an independent contractor and that the Reardons were not liable to him.

Uncontradicted evidence showed that Torres was engaged in a distinct occupation and an independently established business, Torres supplied his own tools and equipment used in the work, Torres hired his own employees, Torres was not hired by the day or hour but contracted with the Reardons to produce the specific result of trimming the tree for an agreed-upon price, the Reardons did not control the manner of means of accomplishing the desired result, and the work that Torres contracted to perform was not work ordinarily done in the course of the Reardons’ business but was maintenance work done on their home. Therefore, Torres was an independent contractor, not an employee of the Reardons.

Clearly, in certain situations businesses can reduce their liability by contracting with independent contractors. The key, of course, is to ensure the above elements as found in the Torres case are met.