Details of this Paper

company?s certified union




Case 1 ? Don?t Mess With My Time;Ridgeway Minerals Corporation faced three grievances brought by the company?s certified union. The charges ranged from discriminatory action against the Union to violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.;The first grievance resulted from a change in the work schedule for the Maintenance Department. The contract stated that employees were to work no more than eight hours per day, Monday through Friday, unless modified by mutual agreement. The shift starting and ending hours, as well as the lunch break, were determined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and were not to be changed.;Three schedules were issued for employees: one in 1973, a second in 1976, and a final one in 1981. The shift starting and ending times remained the same on all three. Lunch breaks also stayed at the same time. The only changes made were to the 11:50 am wash-up time for lunch and the 3:25 pm procedure time for leaving the shift. Employees claimed the Company could not change these items without being subjected to negotiations.;The second grievance was filed because of a temporary transfer for an employee. Mr. Burns, a Millwright, had been given several temporary transfers into the position of truck driver during the past several years. He had top seniority in the Maintenance Department, and by the Collective Bargaining Agreement when this department was used to determine eligibility, he was the one who received first chance at these transfers.;A temporary position came open for a truck driver. The Company placed a janitor in the job, due to the fact that he had seniority in the classification the Company chose to use for this particular move.;The two sides disagreed as to the permissibility of the temporary transfer as conducted under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Company stated that it had the reserved right to determine the job classification it wanted to use in a temporary transfer, as long as they selected the most senior employee within that classification. The Union, on the other hand, argued that the company was obligated to give temporary transfers within Department seniority guidelines, despite classifications. Thus Burns should have been awarded the job.;The final grievance was brought against the Company because of the new parking facilities it had competed. The work forced had expanded and management felt it was necessary to add additional parking areas. The parking lot closest to the door was reserved for management and visitors. The next closest was for office personnel. The two parking lots farthest from the door were for plant workers.;The Union argued that the placement of parking places constituted discrimination on the company?s part. Union members received a bonus of two hours pay per month for being to work on time. This added distance between the plant and the allowed parking lots could cause the workers to be late, thereby costing them their bonus. Additionally, the Company?s actions caused the Union members to feel as if they were being looked down upon.;1. Analyze the 3 grievances.;2. What sections of the Wagner Act are in question here? Explain.;3. How would you rule in each grievance? Explain.;Additional Requirements;Level of Detail: Show all work


Paper#15887 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $37