Acme Manufacturing Company Case & United Machine Workers Description of the Situ

Question

Acme Manufacturing Company Case & United Machine Workers Description of the Situation: Production workers at Acme Manufacturing Company are represented by the United Machine Workers Union. There is a valid labor agreement between the parties. Relevant provisions from the contract are provided after the description of the case. On September 15 Manufacturing Supervisor Joe Jackson asked Kyla Martin, a machine operator, to remain at the end of the shift and work overtime. Martin said she could not work overtime that night because of a prior commitment and suggested that other, more junior, operators be asked. Jackson agreed, recognizing both Martin's seniority and her reason as valid. About 15 minutes later, Jackson brought a work sheet for September 15 with a refused overtime marked next to Martin's name and asked her to initial the sheet next to her name. Thinking that the work sheet might go into her personnel record as a bad mark, Martin refused to initial it. She told Jackson that she had refused overtime assignments in the past and never had been asked to initial a work sheet before. Jackson replied that employees frequently had been asked to initial overtime refusals and that he was simply trying to standardize the procedure. He said the work sheets were used only as a record to show that the company had offered overtime to employees in accordance with the contract. Martin thought that she was being tricked and again refused to initial the work sheet. Jackson then gave Martin an order to initial the work sheet and told her she would be insubordinate and liable to disciplinary action if she refused. Martin who had recently been elected a shop steward asked if she could call over another shop committee member. Jackson agreed. Martin asked the other shop steward to serve as a witness. She then repeated that she was officially declining the overtime for the record but would not initial the work sheet unless Jackson could show her some rule requiring employees to do so. Jackson then explained to Martin and the other shop steward that he had given Martin a "clear and direct" order to initial the work sheet on penalty of disciplinary action for refusal to do so. Since Martin still would not initial the work sheet, Jackson said he had no choice but to suspend Martin for three days. In writing up his disciplinary action statement, Jackson stated, "Shop stewards especially should understand insubordination. The company cannot have Ms. Martin setting this kind of example to the other workers. Martin grieved the suspension and the parties proceeded to arbitration. The union argues that the supervisor did not have grounds for suspending Martin for refusing to initial the overtime sheet since the procedure had not been required in the past. The company has not issued new procedures regarding overtime sheets so Martin was within her rights under the contract to decline the supervisor’s request to initial the sheet. Based on the company’s past practice that did not require employees to initial the sheet, the union requests that Martin be made whole (including back pay, etc.) for the three day suspension and that this disciplinary action be removed from her record. The company argues that it has the right to make reasonable rules and enforce them. If Martin disagreed with the rule, she should have complied with her supervisor’s request and then grieved the rule. As a shop steward, she has a higher duty to ensure her actions do not violate the contract. The company requests that the arbitrator uphold its decision to suspend Martin. The parties have agreed that the issue before the arbitrator is: Issue for the Arbitrator: Was the discharge of Shop Steward Kyla Martin permissible under the terms of the agreement? If not, what should the remedy be? Relevant Contract Provisions and Regulations: •Article V: Employee Responsibilities: The employees shall comply with the Shop Regulations attached hereto and made part of this Agreement. It is understood that the Company has a right to make reasonable rules and that the Union has a right to grieve the application of such rules if it believes they are being unjustly applied. •Article X: Management Rights: The control of all matters concerning the operation and management of the plant and the operation of the Company's business are the exclusive responsibility of the Company, subject to the provisions of this Agreement. The Company has the right to discharge, suspend, or otherwise discipline employees for cause. •Shop Regulation #9 The following are legitimate causes for disciplinary action that may result in suspension without pay or discharge: refusal to obey orders from a supervisor; refusal to accept instructions or constructive criticism when given by a supervisor... For this assignment: You will play the role of arbitrator and decide the case below. In writing an arbitration opinion, you should address the arguments of each party and why or why not you do not accept them. It is important to pay careful attention to explaining why you did not accept the arguments of the losing party without being too harsh in criticizing that party. It is also important to critique the arguments in a constructive manner. As in most arbitration cases, you must decide the issue that the parties have framed. Your analysis should be about 3 pages in length. Be sure to review the General Instructions for Case Analysis [PDF file size 34.0 KB] before you begin. The evaluation criteria include: •Based on the facts and contract language in this case, have you clearly analyzed both parties' positions and explained why you accepted or rejected their arguments? •Is your decision clearly communicated to the parties? •Is information from the textbook and other sources, if applicable, integrated into your analysis appropriately? You must provide complete citations for all references. •Case rubric

Explanation / Answer

Case: Acme Manufacturing Company Case & United Machine Workers Introduction to the case analysis The legal aspect of every contract in business requires critical analysis for every term in accordance to the specifics upon which both parties are involved. The reason for analyzing such terms carefully is because it can become a crucial part in determining the decision making when addressing any business problem. This is generally more important from the perspective of the company management because some situations can result in high intensity and significance for the company. Analyzing the terms of a contract will help avoid any inappropriate or insufficient conclusions when presenting a final resolution in times of a dispute. The case to be evaluated in this assignment is the result from an opposing perception of an issue in which both party’s are involved. The grievance is the result from the opposing views on a subordination matter; that of the management’s perspective and that of the employee. The case to be evaluated can very easily occur in an actual situation and I would like to write this analysis from the management’s perspective. Summary of the issue(s) The problem involves the contradicting views of a legal issue within the union contract reached between our firm, the Acme Manufacturing Company (the company) and the United Machine Workers Union (the union). The parties in question in the dispute are Mrs. Kyla Martin, a machine operator working in the company and her immediate supervisor Mr. Joe Jackson. Mrs. Martin and other production workers at the company are represented by the union based on the pre-determined labor agreement between the union and the company. The labor agreement officially establishes particular provisions that generally describe the conduct of employees, their grievance basis, the grounds for sanctions and punishment, as well as other significant aspects within the employer – employee relationship. The grievance between the two involved parties in this case seems to stem from a disciplinary action of the management, namely that of the manufacturing supervisor Mr. Jackson based on the grounds of insubordination which is being grieved by Mrs. Martin through the union. The root of the problem involves a situation where Mrs. Martin has refused an overtime request from Mr. Jackson, who accepted her answer as valid reason. Mr. Jackson in return asked Kyla Martin to initial a prepared worksheet that would mention the act of her refusal of overtime. Fear of tarnishing her records, Mrs. Martin declined to initial the worksheet. Even after Mr. Jackson ultimately ordered her to initial the sheet, she remained defiant and refused to sign. Mr. Jackson regarded the act as a case of disobedience to a clear order from management as an act of apparent insubordination. To set a kind of example for the other employees, management decided to suspend Mrs. Martin for three days. Analysis of the issues The grievance presented has significant relations with some provisions and regulations that have been pre-established in the union contract between the United Machine Workers Union, which represents our production personnel, and the management of Acme Manufacturing Company. However, this matter is specifically a case about opposing opinions and the legal perception of Mrs. Kyla Martin and her manufacturing supervisor Mr. Joe Jackson in regards to their authority and subordination. For our company to find a relevant resolution in this grievance, each action and element of mentioned parties needs to be reviewed critically and compared with the concept included in the provisions of the union contract. The disciplinary action from the company management resulting in a three day suspension is justified in accord with Article X and Shop Regulation #9 of the union contract provisions. Article X relates to managements right to suspend or discharge an employee on actions relating to the causes described in the Shop Regulation #9 provision. The provisions in Shop Regulation #9 describe the various grounds for disciplinary action including the refusal to obey orders from a supervisor, as argued by manufacturing supervisor Joe Jackson. Kyla Martin’s and the union’s act of objection with the command must be considered because of provisions in Article V in the union contract. This article or Provisions of Employee Responsibility mentions that the union has a right to grieve the application of established rules, if they believe that it is unjustly applied. In this case it is indeed the grounds Mrs. Martin bases her grievance on, which serves as ground for unjust implementation of disciplinary action. Of particular interest and consideration is the root that led to the disciplinary action. It is the actual command from Mr. Jackson for Mrs. Martin to sign a prepared worksheet with the indication that she had refused for overtime. Mrs. Martin had refused to obey Mr. Jackson’s command because she is under the impression that such command is irrelevant as there is no rule that indicates the need for employees to initial a worksheet if he/she refuses to overtime. We must take notice that previous cases of the same nature had no requirements for Mrs. Martin to initial a worksheet indicating such refusal. An additional critical analysis of the case will indicate that Mr. Jackson, as the manufacturing supervisor, has failed to provide proof to Mrs. Martin and the called committee member with any legal and documented proof that his order is a required standard procedure in our company. Therefore Mrs. Martin reached the conclusion that the order from Mr. Jackson is indeed not appropriate and the punishment was unjustly implemented. This brought her to file her grief against the given order and punishment by Mr. Jackson. Conclusion We must properly address this case by analyzing the actual roots of the problem, as well as the impact it will have to the parties involved. We already established that provisions in the union contract indicate that the employees have a responsibility to follow the orders given by the management of the company and that failure to follow such orders will result in disciplinary actions with appropriate punishment. But it is also established in the same contract that the employee has a right to grieve such rules if there is an indication that they are unjustly applied. The fact that previous cases did not require any initials for refusing to take on overtime have set a precedence to the fact that no initials are needed in such cases. Therefore, Mrs. Martin’s refusal to initial the worksheet does not violate any provision in the union contract and any punishment was unjustly applied. Because of the aforementioned facts, I would suggest a compromise and pay her for the three day suspension and remove any negative comments in her file pertaining to this case

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.