Chapter 8 mini #350 S - Case Study Example

The Case of Timmy Aldrich s Timothy Aldrich case highlights an important topic in labour laws and collective bargains. In most cases labour laws give provisions on matters of paid leave but do not give requirements or entitlements. Collective bargains have played a critical part in formulating policies on paid an unpaid leave. I would not give Timothy Aldrich the paid leave that he requests, as he is not entitled.According to the Department of Labour, the law does not give express entitlement of paid leave to employees.

This means that the law does not require employers to give paid leave to their employees. Timmy works on part-time basis and thus he does not belong to the group of employees that are entitled to annual paid leave. He is only entitled to paid public holidays over and above the off-duty time he enjoys as a part-time worker. The labour agreement that Aldrich produces to support his request for paid leave is a collective bargain that does not cover employees in his category. Employees are entitled to an annual paid leave of two weeks after working in Smedley Bottled Gas for one calendar year from the date of hiring.

It is true that Aldrich was hired one year ago and that the labour agreement cover all employees. However, it would not make economic sense for an employee who reports on duty only on Friday afternoons to request for a paid leave.In this case, Aldrich should not be given the paid leave and because of his irate response, the reasons for this should be clearly explained to him. This would avoid any instance where he would think that there is discrimination and profiling in the company and that he is looked down upon by the company’s management (Society for Human Resource Management, 2008).

ReferenceSociety for Human Resource Management. (2008). Examining Paid Leave in The Workplace. Alexandria: Society for Human Recource Management.