Question 38

A manager promises employees a wage increase if they do not join a union.

A manager promising employees a wage increase contingent upon not joining a union constitutes a violation of the Wagner Act, as it represents an unfair labor practice aimed at discouraging union membership.

A) An employee tells a manager that the employee is pro-union.

This situation does not violate the Wagner Act. Employees have the right to express their support for unionization without fear of retaliation or discrimination, as the Act protects their rights to organize and collectively bargain.

B) An employee informs a manager that employees are attempting to unionize.

Informing a manager about unionization efforts is not a violation of the Wagner Act. Employees are entitled to discuss and disclose their intentions to organize, which is a protected activity under the Act.

C) A manager shares with employees a past personal experience with a union.

Sharing personal experiences with a union does not violate the Wagner Act, as long as the manager does not express anti-union sentiments or discourage union activity. This can be seen as sharing information rather than interfering with employees' rights.

D) A manager promises employees a wage increase if they do not join a union.

This option clearly violates the Wagner Act. Such a promise can be interpreted as a coercive tactic to dissuade employees from joining a union, which undermines their rights to organize and is explicitly prohibited by the Act.

Conclusion

The violation of the Wagner Act is distinctly illustrated by the manager's promise of a wage increase as a means to deter union membership. The other options reflect scenarios that are protected under the Act, highlighting employees' rights to discuss union matters freely. Thus, only Option D represents a clear infringement on the principles established by the Wagner Act.