Labour Relations - Striking a Balance - Assignment Example

Human Resource Question 2 Should employees be allowed to use company e-mail systems to discuss common work related concerns pertaining to their wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment? How about to discuss unionizing? If not, what types of restrictions should companies be allowed to place on the use of their e-mail systems? Make sure you are thinking about the legal requirements from chapter 4 and the material from chapter 6. The use of company e-mail systems by employees is a protracted issue at the work place because it raises several issues concerning employee rights and liberties. For instance, issues of benefits, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment, according to the US labour relations system, requires a formidable union. Additionally, the union must receive the support of a majority of workers. It, therefore, means that the legal aspect of unionizing must be strictly followed in accordance with job satisfaction, the union’s beliefs in terms of effectiveness, and the existing social environment (Budd, 2013). Consequently, the use of company e-mail systems should abide by the rules and regulations stipulated by both the employers and employees. Alternatively, the existing private property rights set by employers must be respected by employees because that creates a sense of mutual respect. On that account, workers are only permitted to use the e-mail systems if their unions have approved such as move in raising matters of wages and benefits. A company can enforce regulations through the placement of supervisors who monitor the use of company properties without authorized permission. An organization equally has the right to invoke the private property rights in order to prevent their employees from accessing certain areas such as the company e-mail systems to discuss wages and benefits (Pynes, 2013). Overall, the company has the right to mention legal precedents as a deterrent from using properties not belonging to an employee. Finally, there is the legal requirement of resolving an existing impasse involving both the employee and employer. However, it’s only possible through the use of a strong union tasked with overseeing the rights and limits of employees when using a company’s e-mail system. There are equally effective methods of controlling employee’s use of e-mail systems through initiation of organization drive. Organization drive implies that the company collaborates with unions to have strategic mechanisms of confronting pertinent issues affecting workers. It, however, does not amount and employer-initiated drive because such a move hugely interrupts an employee’s free choice in expressing his grievances of wages and benefits. Building and documentation of support is vital because the union has a point of reference during their engagement in collective bargaining. In collective bargaining, employers will insist that workers use authorization cards that permit them to use certain facilities such as e-mails systems (Drucker, 2012). Documentation will equally work well with the elimination of supervisory controversies that make employer-employee relationship unstable. Question 3  Using information from chapter 7 as justification, why is it difficult for labour negotiators to switch from traditional to integrative bargaining? What recommendations would you make for negotiators trying to make this switch? Why is it more difficult for union negotiators to make this change compared to company negotiators? Switching from traditional to integrative bargaining for labour negotiators is often difficult as a result of numerous reasons. First, it is critical to understand the components that define aspects of bargaining which include costing, preparation, and timeline that guide the negotiation process (Wagner, 2000). During bargaining, other issues emerge such as identification of interests and these often influence the choice of bargaining between employers and unions. Therefore, unlike the traditional bargaining that does not advocate for a win-win situation for the parties involved, the integrative approach ensures an achievement of mutual gains. The move is geared towards providing solutions for any emerging zero-sum conflicts. Conversely, while integrative bargaining largely concentrates on interests instead of positions, traditional bargaining focusses on positions that eventual end up in disagreements. It means labour negotiators find it difficult to adopt the integrative format because they feel it’s full of trickery and betrayal. It is thus essential to make certain recommendations for labour negotiators to ensure that the interests of both employers and employees are equally represented. In accordance with The National Labour Relations Act (NLRA), it is upon negotiators to avoid falling into the following traps. There’s unilateral change whereby the employer alters the terms and conditions, wages, and benefits especially during contract negotiations. It is the task of labour negotiators in that scenario to use both elements of traditional and integrative bargaining to reach a neutral position that favours all parties (Drucker, 2012). Making a change of bargain is usually hard for union negotiators unlike for company negotiators because the latter hold the rights and privileges of all contract negotiations. Another challenge is caused by intra-organizational bargaining process that often incorporates the top management thus making it hard for union negotiators to fight for rights and interests of workers. Conversely, it is upon NLRA to critically study the guiding motives of individual workers when bargaining. For instance, issues of job dissatisfaction and union instrumentality should feature prominently to understand the general union attitudes that guide and motivate workers when choosing either the traditional or integrative bargaining (Wagner, 2000). Collective social identity is another fundamental element for employers to make objective predictions of existing competitive forces such as demands for salary increment and provision of wages. The timeliest recommendation, therefore, involves outline controversies that often define employer campaigns which could amount to espionage, manipulation and firings. Additionally, unions should find platforms that create worker activism through passing relevant information to individual workers as a means of informing and persuading them to take action. Overall worker participation must take an active precedence to let all means of bargaining thrive in the organization. Question 5 Answer the questions following case 6 (Work Requirements for Holiday Pay) on page 340 in your textbook. Assume the role of director of human resources for Saga food services. How would you present your case that John Arnett is not entitled to his holiday pay for Labour Day? As the director of human resources for Saga food services, there are diverse ways I would present my case concerning John Arnett’s entitlement to holiday pay for Labour Day. For example, I would invoke the breach of collective bargaining agreement because it interferes with section 7.03 (B) and thus prevents him from earning any holiday pay. Again, as the director, I will mention that of conditions that include injury, sickness, and permission are not exceptions when determining remuneration (Budd, 2013). By invoking the above conditions, I would be demonstrating to Saga food services that John breached the terms and conditions specified by the company. As a business agent for Local 444, how would you argue that John Arnett is due his for holiday pay? Contrastingly, as the business agent of Local 444, considerations for John’s case would lead to me to make a few decisions. I would, for example, revoke union’s stance that there was a violation of collective bargaining agreement when Arnett failed to make appearances on Wednesday and Thursday (Wagner, 2000). However, it would be prudent to engage NLRA in solving Arnett’s case because of the Employee Free Choice Act within the accepted bounds of working days as noted with the complainant’s scenario. As an arbitrator, how would you rule? Why? As the arbitrator, I would rule against the employee by denying him his entitlement of a holiday pay during the Labour Day. According to the law, contract interpretation of well-established principle did not meet the requirements of 7.03 (B). Cases of ambiguity also resulted of unfulfilled promises by both employers and employers in understanding John Arnett’s case over the holiday pay. The intervention of unions is hence null and void it only view the rights and privileges of Arnett without considering other factors. Overall, my ruling must reflect the critical issues raised such as holiday pay and work requirements in order act as a benchmark for future cases. Question 6   Answer the questions following case 10 (Are Special Skills the Same as Merit?) on page 344-345 in you textbook. As the city of Ditchburn personnel Director, how would you present your case that the transfer of Jose Orbadors did not violate the agreement? On the other hand, as the city of Ditchburn personnel Director I present Jose Obradors case by distinguishing between special skills and merit within the company context . I would argue that his seniority did not merit a refusal for transfer because it’s an organizational requirement. However, while the union argues that a serious contravention of Obradors’s rights was conducted under management right clause, it’s not true. According to the clause, a seniority provision is not equivalent to special skills in spite of the stipulations for the complainant to offer valuable services. Again, Article 6 demands that as junior bilingual Dispatcher, Jose deserves to work full time despite his privileges of special skills in company (Pynes, 2013). In my capacity as the personnel Director, transfers and contraventions of the company law in regards to special skills and merit should not be clouded by bias and subjectivity. As a local union official, how would you argue the Citys action regarding Jose Orbadorss transfer violated the contract? Under the capacity of a local union official, I would cite the breach of collective bargaining agreement since seniority of the victim is protected by Article 31 that bars unwarranted transfers. Similarly, recognition of merit is clearly spelt out by Article 31 and rewards for special skills as noted in Article 30. Overall, special ability is not an avenue to abuse the privileges that come with seniority rights. Arising transfers must also consider the two entities of special skills and merit as separate to avoid baseless discriminations in the company. In other words, Jose has the right to sue the company through the local union body for the infringement of his liberties to pay for as indicated by Article 31. As an arbitrator, how would you rule? Why? Therefore, as an arbitrator, my ruling would fault the ambiguous provisions clearly stipulated by Articles 30 and 31. This is because the articles fail to interpret Jose’s contract by relying only on section 4 of Article 31. Additionally, the citation of language ability to explain the transfer does not the complainant in understanding his rights and privileges (Snell & Bohlander, 2012). Overall, the final ruling must match the expectations of both parties namely the union and Jose Obradors in respect to special skills and the need for merit to excel in the organization. References Budd, J. (2013). Labour Relations: Striking a Balance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Drucker, P. (2012). The Practice of Management. New Jersey, NJ: SAGE. Pynes, J. (2013). Human Resources Management for Public and Non-profit Organizations: A Strategic Approach. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Snell, S. & Bohlander, G. (2012). Managing Human Resources. New Jersey, NJ: Cenegage Learning. Wagner, H. (2000). Globalization and Unemployment. Mason, OH: Springer. Read More