Employment Law

et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.

Sample Solution

On July 29, 2016, Delphi Golf, Inc. and the union entered a collective bargaining agreement which included a union-security clause requiring employees who were members of the union to maintain their membership in good standing while all other employees were required to become members of the union on or before the 31st day following the effective date of the agreement or date of hire. Following this agreement, the union instructed Delphi Golf, Inc. not to employ three servers for restaurant positions in the company because they were not members of said union (Rudney et al., 2018). As a result, an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge was filed against Delphi Golf by several current employees and three prospective employees claiming that its actions violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In order to defend itself against this action, Delphi Golf would have to undertake various steps throughout proceedings at both administrative and judicial levels. At administrative level ,the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will review information submitted by parties involved including any evidence relevant to case such as documents/testimony needed for evaluation purposes .The NLRB will then issue either complaint if it finds ULP has occurred or decision dismissing charges if it does not find violation based on submissions reviewed which can be appealed by either party if necessary .If complaint is issued ,then investigation will take place during which time further evidence may be collected from either side however only sufficient facts must remain establish alleged violations occurred (Rudney et al., 2018). Afterward hearing may occur where witnesses/testimony are presented as well as arguments made by attorneys representing each side before judge renders final decision .At this stage settlements may also be reached through mediation although unlike decisions made in hearings these are generally non binding unless signed off upon court Judge (Rudney et al., 2018). Ultimately ,the process involved in defending against ULP charges varies depending on specific circumstances yet follows general guidelines outlined above which involve gathering evidence followed by multiple stages adjudication with potential settlement between parties occurring along way.