Technology Service Solutions (I)
National Labor Relations Board
332 N.L.R.B. 1096 (2000)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Technology Services Solutions (TSS) (defendant) employed 236 customer-service representatives (CSRs), who performed installations and servicing of computer systems, in eight Southern and Central states. TSS’s employees did not share a common workplace: they worked from home and were electronically dispatched by TSS to customers’ locations. A labor union (the union) (plaintiff) wanted to organize all the Colorado CSRs. By diligently contacting some Colorado CSRs and asking for contact information of other CSRs, the union obtained a sufficient number of signed cards indicating interest in union representation. The regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (the board) authorized an election, and TSS provided the union with a contact list of 63 Colorado CSRs. On TSS’s request, the board reviewed the matter and determined that the only appropriate bargaining unit was one covering all 236 CSRs. The union requested a list of employee names and addresses from TSS, asserting that the union lacked access to the CSRs due to TSS’s structure and that TSS’s failure to provide a contact list unlawfully interfered with employees’ organizational rights. TSS denied the request for a contact list. The judge dismissed the allegation of unlawful interference by TSS, and the board reviewed the issue.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (No information provided)
Dissent (Fox, Member)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.