¶ … Right to Contract Out The notion that by raising the janitor job from $13.89 to $14.38 the Company would cease "to be successful" says enough about the "good faith" of the Company to know that it is dubious at best. Yet this 80 cent raise was maintained as the reason for denial of the grievance (Schwartz 516). Moreover, during the job evaluation, the Company "tipped its hand" by announcing that it did not really want to evaluate the job because after a wage survey it had found that the "janitors were the highest paid in the area" (p. 518). At the same time, the Company broke with its traditional or normative manner of evaluating by not requesting for a lowering of points, as it had in the past, when pay was an issue. Instead, the Company showed its hand again when one representative stated, "These jobs are probably gone" (Schwartz 518). In reality, it was the Company's intention to give the appearance of "evaluating" by meeting with the Union representatives while secretly negotiating with outsiders to outsource the janitor jobs at lower cost. When the Union realized this and noted it, the Company attempted to backtrack and say that there was already a contract made to outsource -- which was not the case at all. By tipping its hand, the Company was essentially testing the waters to see if the Union would object. It did, citing Article 19 and Article 29 of the contract.

The Company responded by citing the "very broad management rights clause" of the contract -- essentially a loophole, or what it deemed as such. The reason for this loophole seeking is also clear: by outsourcing the janitor jobs, the Company could save nearly $400,000 a year.

In this situation, the union has the burden of proof since it is the one filing the grievance and the matter is related to a contract interpretation ("Five Common Grievance Issues"). The case is, however, both a matter...

In essence, it is always a contract interpretation issue, unless it is a disciplinary issue. Yet, the "good faith" and the contract are intertwined in the sense that the Company views itself as not having violated "good faith" because of clauses within the contract, which it itself points out are "broad" in nature. But by adhering to "broad" clauses, the Company is undermining the Company-Union relationship and attempting to fit into a loophole its desire to save $370,000 by outsourcing labor. If the union's purpose is to protect labor, then it has a right to file a grievance, and its burden of proof is not so great as one might think: it shows clearly that the Company was not acting in "good faith" and was in violation of the contract.
This issue might have been avoided, however, if in the contract there had been a section devoted to providing guidelines for the Company to retain the right to contract out bargaining unit work. Such guidelines could, for instance, be developed thus:

First, the Company should agree with the Union on which positions may qualify for contracting out. Second, this agreement should be up for re-negotiation every so many years (2-3, for example), at which time both sides should prepare reasons for or against allowing jobs to be permitted to be contracted out. Third, if jobs are deemed allowed to be contracted out, there should be some rights pertaining to the workers in that their jobs are not eliminated (in the sense that the Company still maintains them in some other capacity). This allows for workers to be shifted within the Company while retaining their rate of pay at worst. Such guidelines are necessary for keeping the Company from violating the recognition clause…