Issue: Did the company violate the collective bargaining agreement when it reduc

Question

Issue: Did the company violate the collective bargaining agreement when it reduced the hours of full time employees to less then 35 hours per week as this action relates to the NLRB charge

Issue: Did the company violate the collective bargaining agreement when it reduced the hours of full time employees to less then 35 hours per week as this action relates to the NLRB charge Issue: Did the company violate the collective bargaining agreement when it reduced the hours of full time employees to less then 35 hours per week as this action relates to the NLRB charge

on drivers" wages. Absent sc a reliance on Article 34 fails The problem with the Unonsposition is that Questions Articke 34 does not speak to "driving tie. Article 34 . What is the appropriate level of peose 2. Which party bears the burden of requires a correlation with all "hours of workwhether the 65 miles Which jurisdiction of the NLRB be sabject matter under per hour standard has no impact whatsoever on a the ua thrre has been no impact on the drivers "hous of 4 Should the arbitrator consider t work, as required has been limited to the driver's "hours of driving attempt to bargain over the reduct, pany's per hour? kon to 65 miles by ArticleAt most, any impact toler rmini Co isde in The Union contensds that a driver could exceed the 5, You be the arbitrator and the ountootne. DOTs 11 hour maxinsum for permissible driving time as a result of the 65 miles per hour limitation. This Issue: Did the Company Violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it Reduced the Hours Full-Time Employees to Less than 35 Hours per Week as This Action Relates to the NLRB Charge? Bargaining Agreement for the period October Background Roe Services, Inc. is a federal governmment contractor 2012 to September 30, 2016. for food services. The Government Employees Union The Grievance in this matter was Company is stm (GEU) represents the food service and custodial or verting all fulltime employees to part time. maintenance employees GEU has represented the 12, Mr. Bob Pain, President, GEU, wrote the foll food service employees over at the course of moreletter to Mr. Joe Roc, President, Roe Services, Inc. than 25 years through a series of federal contractors The GEU and Roe Services signed a Collective The Company informed the Untion that on Sepiem ber 1, 2015 it will put up a new chedule th

Explanation / Answer

1 - The unfair labour practice charge being deferred to arbitrator means that there would be a team of expert panel which would try to mitigate between the company and union for a fee, which would be an out of court settlement but by legal means(follows legal path without any penalty or Punishments) and is considered as a desirable method for settlement of any kind of grievances, issues etc. The Arbitrator is the chair of the panel and acts as the judge of the hearing, in the case of arbitration, it is not legally binding, it is more of a suggestion or a way to settle the dispute and the decision of arbitrator is not final and binding

2 - As per the current rules of the Affordable healthcare act, if the company has more than 50% full-time employees it is compulsory for it to provide and enrol for affordable healthcare, but as the company has converted many of its full-time employee in to part-time, they might not be under compulsion to enrol under the act.

3 - The company is saying although it has altered the structure of the company it has done it under whatever is permissible under the management rights and has not done any wrong. Even though union says its violated CBA, but the company say that it has not violated CBA and under section 6 of CBA it is mentioned about the that the company can change the existing jobs, create new jobs etc.

4 - The union says that the company has violated the CBA and it cannot change the employment status of the employees. They say that the CBA section 6 has provided the option of creating new jobs and changing it, but it should be done after there is a discussion between the two parties. It is obvious that the employees would lose the other benefits like healthcare benefits gratuity and etc, which would be kind of saving for the company.Plus seniority would also not be considered, which is a depressing issue.

5 - I was an arbitrator, i would have examined the CBA, currently, as per the CBA section 6 between the union and the company is enabling the company to change and modify the jobs and there is no mention of discussion is to be made with the union regarding same. Plus the company is just exercising the Management rights, hence i would give my decision from the company's side and would ask union to corporate with them

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

---

---

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