03 Case Study: Acme Manufacturing Company - Essay Example

Running Head: ACME MANUFACTURING & UNITED MACHINE Acme Manufacturing Company Case & United Machine Workers Introduction The United Machine Workers Union represents the production workers at Acme Manufacturing Company and there is a valid labor agreement between the two parties. A disagreement had occurred on September 15 between Joe Jackson, the manufacturing supervisor and Kyla Martin, a machine operator regarding overtime work. As a representative of the Union, the issues of the case are presented and analyzed below.

Key Issues The issues in the case are: 1) Overtime work; 2) Refusal of overtime work; 3) Insubordination; and 4) Disciplinary action.Facts Supporting the Identification of Key Issues Overtime work can be generally considered as beneficial both to the Company and the Worker. It allows the Company to accomplish its requirements and it provides the Worker an opportunity for increased compensation. It is a fact in this case that Jackson offered Martin overtime work on September 15 which Martin refused due to a prior commitment.

Jackson had agreed to the refusal because of Martin’s seniority and her valid reason for refusing the overtime. Based on the provisions of the labor contract, overtime work has not be clearly and unambiguously defined as the exclusive right of management to impose, nor as the exclusive right of the worker to choose to do or refuse. Currently, US federal overtime law under the Fair Labor Standards Act does not prohibit employers from forcing employees to work mandatory overtime (Employee Issues, 2008).

Because of this many unions use specific contract language in their agreements to address mandatory overtime situations and put limits and restrictions on the employer’s ability to make working overtime hours mandatory while permitting workers to make a voluntary choice to accept an offer to work additional hours (AFL-CIO, 2002). Martin’s refusal to do the overtime work offered by Jackson raises another issue. On the one hand, Martin’s refusal was agreed to by Jackson because of the reasons mentioned above.

Jackson had wanted Martin to initial a document confirming the refusal of overtime, a procedure which was not consistently implemented. Moreover, Jackson avers that the procedure for documenting overtime refusal was supposed to serve the requirements of the labor agreement to document overtime work being offered for the benefit of the worker. Martin thinks otherwise and considers such documentation as a bad mark for the worker. The issue here is the lack of clear objectives and procedures for documenting refusal of overtime work that can be understood and consistently implemented by both parties.

According to employment law, insubordination is a willful failure to obey a supervisor or an employers lawful orders (Duhaime, 2008). According to Article V of the labor contract between Acme and United, the Company has the right to make rules, which in this case is the rule for initialing the work sheet with a refused overtime mark. The employee also has the right to grieve the application of such rules if it believes they are being unjustly applied. Jackson had explained to Martin and the other shop steward that the order to initial the work sheet was given in a clear and direct manner and that refusal to do so merits a penalty of disciplinary action which was eventually imposed as a 3-day suspension.

The issue here is whether Martin’s refusal to initial the worksheet constitutes insubordination and therefore is subject to disciplinary action. All employees are expected to meet performance standards and behave appropriately in the workplace. Disciplinary or corrective action is a process of communicating with the employee to improve unacceptable behavior or performance (UCSF HR, 2008). The disciplinary action imposed by Jackson on Martin was a three-day suspension for insubordination due to Martin’s refusal to initial the worksheet after direct order from Jackson.

Assuming that Martin’s action was indeed one of insubordination, the next issue is whether the disciplinary action imposed complies with just and proper cause for taking the action. Based on Shop Regulation #9, it does seem that Martin’s refusal to obey the order of Jackson, who is her supervisor is legitimate cause for disciplinary action. However, it may be argued that the actual action of 3-day suspension may not have complied with the Seven Tests of Just Cause defined by Arbitrator Daugherty in 1964 (Teamsters, 2008).

Facts Supporting the Grievance According to Article V of the labor agreement, Martin and the Union she belongs to have the right to grieve the application of rules if they believe that such rules are being unjustly applied. The same article provides that the Company has the right to make reasonable rules. In this case, Martin grieves that the application of the 3-day suspension is not a reasonable penalty. Applying the seven tests of just cause, several of the tests may not have been complied with.

The 3-day suspension may not be a reasonable application of the rule, notice regarding the imposition of such a penalty may have been insufficient, investigation may have been insufficient or not fair, the rule for initialing work sheets have not been consistently applied signifying unequal treatment, and the type of discipline may not be appropriate to the seriousness of the violation (UCSF HR, 2008).Facts Not Supporting the Grievance The only fact not supporting the grievance is that indeed, Martin refused to obey her supervisor’s order to sign the worksheet, constituting a violation that makes her liable for disciplinary action.

Compromise vs. Arbitration of Grievance From the position of a Union representative, it is recommended that a compromise be reached in order to resolve the grievance rather than pursue arbitration. Upon analysis of the case, the only real issue seems to be the refusal to initial a work sheet marked with refusal for overtime. Martin should accept that indeed this is a disobedience of a supervisor’s direct order. However, the Company had also been remiss in implementing its rules fairly and equally.

It is therefore suggested that a re-orientation on the rules be conducted so that both parties are clear about the rules as well as the penalties of disciplinary action that are to be imposed when such rules are violated. The position of the Union is that Martin must be sanctioned for her disobedience but the 3-day suspension is too heavy a penalty for the violation considering the circumstances of the case. In light of Martin’s seniority and the validity of her excuse for refusing overtime work, it is recommended that a lighter action would be appropriate such as a written warning.

References AFL-CIO Safety and Health Department. 2008. Restrictions on mandatory overtime—Examples of contract language. Retrieved 15 October 2008, from http://www.aflcio.org/issues/safety/issues/otexamples.cfm?RenderForPrint=1 Duhaime, L. 2008. Insubordination. Duhaime.org. Retrieved 15 October 2008, from http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/Insubordination.aspx Mandatory Overtime. 2008. EmployeIssues.com. Retrieved 15 October 2008, from http://employeeissues.com/mandatory_overtime.htm Teamsters. 2008. The seven tests of just cause.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Retrieved 15 October 2008, from http://edu.teamster.org/seven.htm UCSF Human Resources. 2008. Taking disciplinary action. Retrieved 15 October 2008, from http://ucsfhr.ucsf.edu/index.php/pubs/hrguidearticle/chapter-23-taking-disciplinary-action/