LESSON 9 Fit Flare Inc. (Fit)

BOOK Needed for reading

Please respond to both of these question sets.

Question Set 1

Fit Flare Inc. (Fit) is a U.S. fashion forward apparel company headquartered in New York City, with design studios in Toronto, Paris, and Mexico City. The New York City office employs both U.S. residents and foreign nationals. Each of the design studios employs American citizens and local residents. Fabrication had been entirely Los Angeles–based, but much of it was moved to China after a union organizing drive at the Los Angeles facility (a topic covered in more detail in the following section).

In light of this week’s reading, address the following:

Does Title VII apply to the foreign nationals employed in the New York office? Identify the rule or test used to analyze that issue.

Does Title VII apply to the local resident employees in the Toronto, Paris, and Mexico City studios? Identify the rule or test used to analyze that issue.

Does Title VII apply to the American citizens who work in the Toronto, Paris, and Mexico City studios? Identify the rule or test used to analyze that issue.

If Fit permanently laid off all of its Toronto employees, what obligations would it likely have to those employees? Identify the rule or test used to analyze that issue.

If Fit permanently laid off all of its Mexico City employees, what obligations would it likely have to those employees? Identify the rule or test used to analyze that issue.

Question Set 2

Last year, the Teamsters tried to organize the workers at the Los Angeles plant. Although Fit thought the plant manager knew the dos and don’ts of a union organizing drive, he made a series of unfortunate comments about unions and threatened to fire two employees who showed up to work wearing Teamsters T-shirts. When Fit announced shortly thereafter that it was moving most of the work to China, the Teamsters filed an unfair labor practice charge, claiming that Fit’s actions were based on antiunion animus in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Regional Director issued a complaint, and after a hearing before an administrative law judge, the NLRB adopted the judge’s recommended decision against Fit. But Fit prevailed on appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, resulting in the dismissal of the NLRB complaint.

Now the International Seafarers Union has filed lawsuit in Norway, claiming that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision shows that American labor laws do not protect important ILO conventions. The Seafarers are asking the court to issue an order that would permit the union and its members to boycott all vessels carrying Fit garments.

In light of this week’s reading, including the discussion related to the Trico Marinecase (pp. 73–76 of Atleson’s International Labor Law), address the following:

Which ILO conventions could arguably be at issue in Seafarers’ case? Identify them by number and name, and discuss how and why they might relate to that case.

Would the 9th Circuit ruling in favor of Fit necessarily foreclose the Seafarers’ case? If so, why? If not, why not?

What remedies does the ILO itself offer when those conventions are violated?

As a practical matter, in what ways can the ILO impact companies like Fit?

What measures can Fit take to avoid being in similar situations?