HRMD 620 Employee and Labor Relations The employee, a union shop steward, was on
ID: 458677 • Letter: H
Question
HRMD 620 Employee and Labor Relations The employee, a union shop steward, was on her regularly scheduled day off at home. She was called by her supervisor and told to talk to three union members and instruct them to attend a work function called a “Quality Interaction Committee” meeting. The Quest for Quality program was a high priority with the employer for improving patient care at the facility and was part of a corporate program. The union had objected to the implementation of the Quest for Quality program and had taken a position that employees could attend the program if their jobs were threatened, but they should do so under protest and then file a grievance afterward. On the day in question, the union shop steward, in a three-way conversation with the three employees, told them that she would not order them to attend the Quest for Quality meeting, although she had been asked by her supervisor to instruct them to go to the meeting. The supervisor who had called the union shop steward had herself refused to order the employees to attend the meeting but relied on the union shop steward to issue the order to the employees. When the union shop steward failed to order the employees to attend the meeting, the employer suspended the union shop steward for two weeks. The steward grieved the two-week suspension. • What would the employee’s (union’s) defense be? • What would the employer’s defense be? • If the union’s opposition to the “Quest for Quality” program encouraged the employees not to participate, should the union be held responsible for directing the employees to attend? Why or why not?Explanation / Answer
Here the situation is little critical and the unions defence would be here is not giving and providing the information on time they were called on the off day being an emergency they were called seeing the criticality of the situation. As per the labor law and employee act they are not suppose to work on the off day. The programe which was organized was a seminar for the employee benefit. As a union the defense here would be non availibility of the employees on their week off day the company cannot sue them if they are not present in the conference rather the union leader was suspended for 2 weeks which was revolted by the union leader as a practise the company is liable to be punished as per the labor law and employee shall be compensated and bought back to the duty. The employers defense here is that due to the emergency the conference was called and the training or the meeting was organised for the welfare of the employee this cannot be ruled out if their is a compulsion than the case will be against the company and if their is no compulsion than its true company has the full right to call the employee for the welfare of the organization. Yes if the union encouraged the employee not to attend than they are liable to be taken into task and shall be punished as per the law.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.