Relocating Work without Bargaining - Assignment Example

Relocating Work without Bargaining 1. The union argues the company’s effort to borrow low interest bonds to get tax break to build and operate in Michigan support position that the motivating factor in moving to Kentucky was antiunion animus. Do you agree? 1. The expressed opinion of the Union is very true as the company plans to put the layoff of the employees and the relocation comes shortly after the completion of the election for union directors. The company has plans to relocate 29 employees and further layoff other employees. They came out with a wrong precedence soon after the union is established to cater for the rights of the employees. The movement and relocation of the employee is a ploy to weaken the bargaining power of the members who will be working collectively and it is not as means of getting tax break. The coincidence between laying off and relocating the employees and the successful election of the members of union cast doubts on the claim that they after tax break. Therefore, this is a blindfold to drive their own selfish interest on their own favor. The threat of that presents itself with the position of the Union unity need strategies that will weaken them. This is the score that the employer want to achieve by moving to Kentucky and laying off some of the employees. 2. The company’s defense that Schulz made the decision to move the company before the organizing campaign got started, was supported only by his own testimony believe Schulz would it change your opinion of defense? Why or why not? 2. The knowledge that Schulz gave the testimony on support of relocating company. The defense will not change since the main talking point of the argument the timing of the relocating company to Kentucky. The decision was reached at precisely two month after the establishment of the Union body. The motive was a long range oversight that was aimed to weaken the team of the union. For this reason, the defense cannot change because the reason and rationale of moving was with an affront to section 8(a) which transcends strengths of the testimonials. The plans of relocating to Kentucky is not only an affront to the rights of the rights of the employees but it is also done with malice as forethought. Wherefore, it can be argued that the decision and defense will maintain its stands even with the revelation of testimonial that was done at that time shortly after forming the union. 3. Kentucky, like Michigan, is not a right-to-work state, so union organizing in a plant in Kentucky is as likely as in Michigan. The company’s decision to move from Michigan seems to have been both complicated and expensive. Do you think that the company made a decision mainly to avoid unionized workforce. 3. The main reason of moving to the new state was to break the unionized workforce and with malice toward the employee as the fore thought. The interest of the employees was not even in tiniest amount factored in during the time of decision making. In unity the management knew the work force will have more power and bargaining power that will start working on the interest. The workers will start demanding for more pays that in turn it will have the financial implication to the organization. On personal point of view, the position that the organizational held was based on speculation that in unity the demand will surpass the financial requirement of relocation. Additionally, the relocation will weaken the union capacity to ask for their rights. With this move the organization will protect some of its practice without intrusion of the unionized work force that can spoil their reputation and pursuit of their interest. It’s therefore arguable beyond any reasonable doubt that decision to relocate was not genuine and with malicious tendencies with no vested interest to the employees. Consequently, it should be resisted. DRUG TESTING 1. As the arbitrator, give your reasons for in the union’s favor. Then give your reasons for ruling in the employer’s favor. 1. The position of the union is very genuine and based on the pre-signed agreement that is binding. There existed an agreement that the privacy of the employee shall not be interfered with on certain conditions. From the look of things, it appears that the company is perverting this provision by testing the employees during accident with sole reason being to determine if the employee was under the influence of the drugs. This make the argument of the union to be genuine and rational. 2. Argue for and against a decision by the employer in this case to insist on expanding the drug program to include the prohibition of sale, possession, or use of illegal substances on the employee’s own time 2. The employer has the best interest of the employee by doing the drug test. They do the testing to ensure the safety of employees and other staff members. There are clear cutting lines when the company has been given the right to do the drug testing: First is when there is an eminent reason to doubt that the worker is under the influence of drugs that perform well in the company. Secondly when there is an accident, the company is given the leeway to do the drug test to ensure that it’s not as result of being under the influence of drug. Also the employee that are working in very strict and sensitive areas are required to undergo drug test to ensure that they are safe and they do not pause threat to the area of working. Close observation of the reasons of drug testing on employees is very genuine and increase the safety of the employees. YOU BE THE ARBITARTOR 1. As arbitrator, what would be your award and opinion in this arbitration? 1. As an arbitrator in this rather complex conflict my opinion will be liberal. There is a number of flaws that need to be deliberated on. First there is grave problem with the contract between the contract of the unionist and the employer. The gaps in agreement of the contract between the two gave lee way to the employer to deliberate wrongly on its employees. On a number of occasions there was consultation between the employer and the union before the members of the union was laid off from the employment because of lack contractual ties between the two parties. On my own considered opinion the agreement between the unionist and the employer were not strong allowing employees to be laid off and subcontracted to other companies of which they had no skill to deliver hence, miss used. 2. Identify the key, relevant section, phrases or words of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and why explain why they are critical in making your decision 2. The collective bargain of the union having consensus with the employer is something that is very appalling especially then thereafter the employee are laid off and subcontracted to other companies. The strategic plan of that was meant to reduce the employment in the company to ensure which was negotiated with the union members. One of the strategic plans that were shared with union was to eliminate some of the employee such as material handlers. Most of the cooperation between the unions and the employer was dealing without any contractual agreement making the union to helpless when the employer strikes. On the most of the occasion the employer did some of the most damaging events on the employee such as subcontracting them to other small companies. The union therefore basing on the aforementioned phrase indicated that they had little they could do within the legal frame to help the member. This is because their contractual agreement with the employer had no basis and it was not binding in any way whatever. Consequently, they ended up in conflict that they and the employees suffered despite being the affronted parties. 3. What actions might the employer and or the union has taken to avoid this conflict? 3. The employer and the union member are part of this impasse and are therefore part of solution. First the employers in a number of ways have affronted the employees because of the weakness of the union. In most cases the affronted employees have been helpless when the employer lay off some of them in three categorical phases. The first phase was through subcontracting some of the employees to a firm that they had no skill to perform hence mistreated with no help. On this case, there was no binding contractual agreement between the union and the employer hence no redress or even mentioned compensation. Another aspect that is appalling and the root cause of conflict is the continuous consensus that the two parties have before they make a move. This poses a question whether the consensus building that the union have with employer is constructive and to the best interest of the employee. Most of them end up subcontracting or eliminating the employees. The consensus should take the compromise from each other to protect the interest of employee and at the same time that of employer. Read More