mployens STUDENTS, EMPLOYEES OR BOTH? did not require collective bargaining betw

Question

mployens STUDENTS, EMPLOYEES OR BOTH? did not require collective bargaining between a university and undergraduates who performed services by virtue of their stacus as students. Between June and July of 2001, the MLRC conducted hearings where the university and the union presented testimony and documentary evidence (Board of Trustees, 2002). The major contested issue centered on RAs' dual student/employee status In Jane 2001 the university filed a motion with the MLRC to dismiss the petition for a certification election on the basis that Massachusetts collective bargaining law According to Massachusetts law, the term "employee" or "public employee" is defined "as any person in the executive or judicial branch of a government unit employed by a public employer with certain specified exceptions" (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2010). Those exceptions include clected and appointed officials members of any board or commission; representatives of any public employer including heads, directors and executive and administrative officers of departments or agencies of any pablic employer) and other managerial or confidential employees; members of the militia or national guard; MLRC employees; and officers and employees within the departments of the state secretary, state treasurer, state auditor and attorney general. During the hearing, the university expressed concern about the appropriateness of students engaging in collective bargaining. In particular, university officials noted the problems engaging in collective bargaining with the GEO (which represented graduate teaching and research assistants), because the GEO often focused on academic matters rather than employment related matters. For example, a graduate a grievance because s/he was not rehired as a graduate assistant for the following year. It turned out the graduate student was not rehired due to academic progress. According to the univ ersity, the GEO had too academic-related issues in the labor-relations process often inappropriately raised rather than regarding related isses. The university believed that similar conficts he university believed that similar conflicts academic matters would occur if RAs engaged in collective bargaining Board of Trustees,2002) On January 18, 2002, the MLRC determi ned that RAs and CDAs had the legal right to organize and engage in colective bargaining. The M secret ballot election be held on March 5,2002, to determine if RAs and CDA desired representation by UAW Local 2322 (UAW Local 2322, 2010). RAs and CDAs on the university's payroll for the payroll period ending January 18, 2002, and who, between January 18, 2002, and March 5,2002, had not quit or been terminated for cause were eligible to vote in the election. The university was directed 2011 Society for Human Resource

Explanation / Answer

Answer 1 : The MLRC determined RAs & CDAs as employees since they were on the payroll of the University & they had the right to caste their vote.

Answer 2 :

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse M
• Subjects

---

---

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