How realistic is the companys argument regarding grooming standards?
It is very realistic when it comes to addressing the grooming standards of the male employees of the Southwest Airlines. Grooming values as well as dressing mostly have reasonable variances based on gender. For instance, only male ramp agents who have long hair are allowed to wear caps whereas the females are not considered to wear caps despite their long hair (Carrell and Christina 35). However, if the principles are uniformly applied they can be sensible and legal. Also, the standards imposed on men and women can be different but they should be based on job requirements.
Can an employer unilaterally impose a grooming rule over the objections of its employees or their bargaining agent?
According to the case study grooming standards at Southwest Airlines, an employer cannot unilaterally impose a grooming rule over the objections of its employees or their bargaining agent. This is because each company has its own rules such as grooming principles which are enforced on uniformly basis. On the other hand, the employees are under a union contract whereby they should not be exploited by the employers. The union support the workers prohibiting the employers from imposing unilaterally grooming rule over the objections of its employees or their bargaining agent.
How valid is the companys argument that the labor agreement with maintenance employees is beyond the scope of this grievance?
Collective bargaining agreement is a contract that exists amid the employer and employee. The workers are represented by one union for negotiations. The agreement that occurs between the employers and the union shields the basic terms of employment like benefits, working hours as well as incentives. However, when it comes to grievant B, the organization say that the contract with maintenance employees is past the purview of complaint is not justified. Thus, considering the collective bargaining agreement, a single contract should hold good for dialogue.
Case study 5-1- Good Faith Negotiations
Do you believe the company was or was not bound to sign the agreement? Explain.
Jeoung Lee is the president of a nursing home for the elderly a facility located in Los Angeles, California. The company and the union were parties to one collective bargaining agreement that expired on 30th June (Carrell and Christina 199). They had six months negotiations sessions for a new collective bargaining agreement. However, even with the negotiations, I dont believe the organization was bound to sign the contract. This is because there were some confusions on who had authority considering the comments Jervis made to the union. Thus, I believe it was erased up various times when Yokoyama elaborated that he had to get it approved by Lee.
Explain why it might be an unfair labor practice for the company to rescind the pay raise without first meeting with the union.
The labor practice might be an unfair due to the massive changes which should have proper notifications before being put in place. Moreover, the company was intricate with a union whereby it never discussed the agreement before any changes made to employees taking place. Also, once the payment increase was implemented, it became a condition of employment and to indiscriminately withdraw it from employees signified by a union is a primary prohibition under the National Labor Reunion Act.
It is not an unfair labor practice for an employer to send negotiators to the bargaining table without the authority to give final approval to the negotiated terms, but is it good or bad idea? Explain.
It is a bad idea for an employer to send the negotiators to bargaining table without the authority to give final approval to the negotiated terms. It is because it does not serve the whole purpose of negotiation. Negotiators role will be more of a mediator than their part of being a negotiator. Thus, they will lead to challenges such as delayed time as well as communication gap which will rise if the negotiator is not authorized to offer final approval. For instance, in the situation where the presidents commitment to the negotiation process was delayed due to the absence of the negotiators.
Case study 9-2- Drug Testing
As the arbitrator, give reasons for ruling in the unions favor. Then give your reasons for ruling in the employers favor.
In this occasion, the employee violated the on-duty provision of the CBA and the employer was within its rights to monitor his drug employment for three years through random testing. The parties observed that random testing by this employer was done on a twenty four hour and a seven day week basis and the employee agreed to random testing (Carrell and Christina 356). However, had the worker not violated the on-duty policy, he would not be subject to random testing. Therefore, it is clear that the testing was accordance to the job issues.
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 employees own time.
Argument For: Illegal doings can affect the workplace even if it does not happen at the place of work. Workers can be convicted causing absenteeism using the employers contact or resources. The employer should not accept such type of behavior such as use of illegal drugs on or off employees own time since it might cause health care problems, drug testing and training as well as retraining cost to the workers.
Argument Against: There are no justifiable reasons for an employer to have any right to dictate its employees behavior regarding illegal drugs or activities. Moreover, if the illegal drugs or actions are affecting the job, the employer has the right to intervene and either warn or dismiss the employee. On the other hand, if the drugs are not interfering with the job performance, then the employer does not have any right to overstep boundaries of the employer employee relationship.
Case study 11-2- Sleeping on the Job
Should the companys treatment of the grievant for the first two sleeping on the job incidents influence the outcome in this case? Explain.
Yes the companys treatment of the grievant for the first two sleeping on job incidents influence the outcome in this case. This is because after the first two incidents the grievant was given written warning showing dissolution from the job in case such incidents are repeated again. Thus, the third incident of repeating the same mistake again showed that the grievant was careless.
Did the company have just cause to dismiss the grievant for violating safety rules when in each instance cited, the truck was out of gear with the safety break on?
The company have a just cause to dismiss the grievant for violating safety rules when in each instance cited, the truck was out of gear with the safety break on. The grievant in each incident was looked for the safety measures where he was found sleeping (Carrell and Christina 426). The motor of the truck in each incident was running, with truck out of the gear and safety breaks on. Thus, it showed carelessness of the grievant since the situation was the same in all incidents.
Is the unions argument that the grievant just appeared to be sleeping creditable in the absence of any testimony of support by the backhoe driver, a fellow union member?
No the unions argument that the grievant just appeared to be sleeping is not creditable in the absence of any testimony of support by the backhoes driver, a fellow union member. After the two repeated incident no one trust the credibility of the grievant. The excuse given by him was totally vague. Grievant placed himself in a resting situation pushing his head back alongside the black box attached behind the seat.
Carrell, Michael R, and Christina Heavrin. Labor Relations And Collective Bargaining. Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall, 2010.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal: