1. Explain how the company’s treatment of both the “covert” and “overt” salts applications for jobs compares to the recommended counter-salting steps for employers.
2. Would either the “covert” or the “overt” salts in this case satisfy the NLRB ruling that applicants for employment must be genuinely interested in seeking employment before claiming protection under the NLRA?
3. Does the company’s opposition to becoming a union shop indicate that there was anti-union animus in refusing to consider the “overt” salts for employment?
Recommended counter salting steps require employer/company to ask applicant’s job history/experience, but they cannot ask whether the applicant is a member of a union (Carrell, 2013). Another important recommendation is ensuring that the job applicant has no gap between the employments, and that can be done during the interview
