Labor and Union Case Study the Objective

Labor and Union Case Study

The objective of this work in writing is to conduct a case study on labor and unions and to answer the questions of: (1) Is the grievance process an effective method for resolving workplace disputes? And (2) How would you suggest that unions and employers improve their ability to correctly interpret the collective agreement?

In the case study at focus, several employees have a discussion, which results in an altercation, and two employees are fired as a result. The employees were then advised that they could file a grievance. One of the employees, named Green met in the cafeteria with a representative of the Grievance Committee and related her side of the story and believed that by meeting with the Grievance Committee member that she had filed an official grievance. One week later the other employee, Swallows, was reinstated. When Green inquired about the grievance, she was informed that she had not filed a grievance. When she confronted the committee member she had met with she was informed by that individual that it was not his normal duty to file a grievance. Green held that her rights under the LMRA had been violated and subsequently filed a charge of unfair labor practice with the NLRB and alleged that she had been lacking in fair representation by the union. In the second case study at issue, the company eliminated all janitor jobs, which was directly in violation of the contract. However, the company replied that it had re-evaluated the jobs and upgraded those jobs and paid more per hour. It is reported that Article 4.1.2 of the Contract Agreement contained the provision of "the placing of production, service, maintenance, or distribution work with outside contractors or subcontractors due to the savings and the ability to spend more time operating the plant." (Case Study 11-1) A grievance was filed and appealed and subsequently denied.

I. Is the Grievance Process Enough for Resolving Disputes?

The work of Travis (nd) reports that labor-management professionals "are often frustrated with the effectiveness of their grievance and arbitration procedures. The same type of grievances continues to arise and the outcome of the final grievance step is often the same." Simultaneously, it is believed by many workers that many issues "get swept under the rug" due to the fear of taking those issues to arbitration and the issues eventually reappear in the future. Travis states that grievance and arbitration procedures in collective bargaining agreements are "the quid pro quo for no-strike clauses. They were meant to be quick and inexpensive in terms of avoiding work stopping and lawsuits due to the agreement being breached. Travis states that the truth is that "decades of labor-management relations has shown that for many labor organizations and employers, the process is one of simply 'going through the motions'." (Travis, nd) While the grievance procedure "may serves it purpose of avoiding work stoppages, many issues remain unresolved, resulting in labor-management animosity, worker dissatisfaction and lost productivity." (Travis, nd) Indeed, the Grievance Process is lacking in its effectiveness in the resolution of workplace disputes.

II. What Could Be Done to Improve the Ability of Unions and Employers in Their Correct Interpretation of the Collective Agreement?

There are specific considerations that should be given to the correct interpretation of collective agreements and those are inclusive of answering as to whether grievances are filed due to personality conflicts between the employee, the job steward and the supervisor and whether there are other non-contractual or culture issues forming the basis of grievances. As well, it must be considered whether supervisors are lacking in the appropriate interpersonal skills and in an understanding of the contract and if the contract provisions are interpreted by supervisors in a uniform fashion. It is necessary that management consider the factors of: (1) the transaction costs; (2) satisfaction with the outcome; (3) effect on the relationship; and (4) recurrence of the problem. (Travis, nd ) The work of Borrell (2006) states that labor arbitration "is generally divided into two categories: (1) contract interpretation disputes; and (2) discipline disputes. Borrell states that in contract interpretation disputes "the burden of proof is on the union to convince the arbitrator that the grievance has merit." (2006) In a survey of 25 arbitrators findings show that poor preparation on the part of the union is an issue that leads to arbitration and that employers are generally better informed that are unions in labor arbitration. From the findings of the study, it appears that poor understanding of the contract between the union and employers is the result of many cases going to arbitration that could have been otherwise settled.