Assignment Instructions/ Description
CASE STUDY LABOR RELATIONS
Questions1. What is the rule on the use of a past practice?2. Has the union established a past practice?3. Does the contract language support the union position?4. How should the arbitrator rule? Why?
Instructions: Read the case study and answer the questions. Each question must be a paragrapheach. 2 references are needed for this assignment the book is one which the case study belowis provided from and cited for on last page and a scholarly source is needed as a secondreference.
Case Study:BackgroundThe origin of this matter of arbitration is the following grievance filed on January 15, 2015:On 4-25-14 due to circumstances beyond my control I (Bob Boyce) was involved in a job-relatedaccident leading to an injury. Negligence and disregard for safety by Management created an unsafework environment. Information on defective equipment was not given to employees by Management.Therefore, hazards remained when injury occurred. Only then did Management respond to correctproblems.I was denied work due to restrictions from M.D. I am filing for 26 weeks employee contributions to hismedical insurance and adjustment to my vacation checks. Compensation for others has been given inthe past.In a letter dated March 20, 2015, the company responded:This regards Grievance filed by Bob Boyce who has requested to be reimbursed for the 26 weeks ofemployee contributions to medical coverage and adjustment for vacation pay during his recentabsence due to an injury. The Grievant feels that since the injury was beyond his control, he should becompensated for all losses.As a practice, the company does not require an employee who is out of work (regardless ofreason) to keep contributing to their portion of the medical coverage during their absence. After theemployee returns, he is required to “catch up” the back payments over a period of time. In thefollowing year, vacation pay is calculated on the basis of total wages earned for the 52 weeks periodpreceding the vacation eligibility period (anniversary date). If the Grievant was out of work (regardlessof the reason) his total wages would of course be less than normal.The company has made only a couple of exceptions to the policy relative to the medicalcontributions in the past: two occasions when employees did not return to work from an injury and/oraccident. Both of these cases were under extenuating circum- stances, not as in the present case. TheGrievant argued that, since he was not at fault in his incident, he should be granted the sameconsideration as the previous cases. I do not think it will be productive to get into the practice ofhaving to argue facts of each case as to who was at fault in the accident before granting the specialrequest. Similarly, the Workers Compensation program is also a “no fault” system where the companyis responsible for paying for the claims regardless of who is at fault. Therefore, I am not inclined tostart a different practice at this time.The Grievant is also arguing that, since the accident was “not his fault”, he should becompensated for the loss of earnings that would have otherwise been considered in calculating hisvacation pay for the following year. This would establish a completely new practice to administer inthe future.As I review the current Labor Agreement, I cannot find a provision that obligates the companyto reimburse the grievant for either of his requests. The actions of the previous cases were above andbeyond our contractual obligations and should not be construed as a precedent for other cases. Basedon the reasoning previously cited, I must deny the grievance.
IssueWhether the collective bargaining agreement between the parties obligates the employer topay for the employee’s contribution for medical coverage during the time he was on workers’compensation leave and to adjust the employee’s vacation pay to credit him for time he was out onleave. If so, what is the remedy?Relevant Provisions of the AgreementArticle 15: VacationEmployees will become eligible for vacations with pay on the following basis:1. Eligibility, time lost as a result of a work-related injury will be counted for the purpose ofdetermining 1,040 hours of work during the fifty-two (52) week period prior to each eligibility date.2. Continuous Service For the purpose of computing vacation eligibility:(a) Time lost as a direct result of illness or accident shall not constitute a break incontinuous service for twelve (12) months of such time lost.(b) Absences due to leave of absences which do not exceed three (3) months shall notconstitute a break in continuous service. However, that period of absence from this cause in excessof one (1) month shall not be counted in computing continuous service for vacation, and anemployee’s anniversary date will be changed accordingly.(c) Termination of seniority as provided for in Article 7, Section III(e), shall constitute acomplete break of continuous service and no past service shall be credited in the event of re-employment.3. Vacation Pay(a) Employees will qualify for six (6) weeks of vacation on the twenty-fifth (25th) anniversaryof the date from which their employment is continuous provided the employee has completed atleast 1,040 hours of work during the year immediately preceding such eligibility date. In suchinstances, vacation pay will be an amount equal to twelve (12) percent of the employee’s total wagesearned by the employee during the calendar year immediately preceding the year of his currenteligibility date or 240 times his permanent hourly rate as of the date he became eligible, whichever isgreater.(b) Employees separated from the payroll and who have previously qualified for at least thefirst week of vacation shall receive pro rata vacation pay for unused vacation at the rate of three andone-half (31⁄2) times their regular hourly rate per week of eligible vacation, for each month ofcontinuous service since the last vacation eligibility date.(c) Vacation payment will not be made earlier than the week immediately prior to thevacation period.4. Vacation Period(a) In a vacation, one (1) week is defined as seven (7) consecutive days; two (2) weeks asfourteen (14) consecutive days; three (3) weeks as twenty-one (21) consecutive days; four (4) weeksas twenty-eight (28) consecutive days; five (5) weeks as thirty-five (35) consecutive days; six (6)weeks as forty-two (42) consecutive days;(b) The anniversary date of employment or the date if changed under two of this article, eachyear shall be the date upon which an individual employee becomes eligible for this vacation.Vacations must be taken during the twelve (12) months’ period following the date on which theemployee has qualified. Vacation periods are not cumulative and are not transferable.(c) The company will schedule the vacation period for each employee as well as generallyadminister the vacation plan. Employees may schedule one week of their vacation “one day at atime.” Insofar as is practicable, consideration will be given to individual employee preference inscheduling vacations on the basis of mill seniority, provided the request is made prior to March 1each year.(d) The company may, at its option, elect to shut the mill for a one (1) or two (2) week periodand require the vacation for which any employee is qualified to be taken. The company will sincerelytry to give as much notice as possible to employees, should the above decision be made.
Article 19: Health & SafetyThe company will earnestly continue its efforts on behalf of the health, sanitation, and safety ofemployees during the hours of their employment. The company and the union agree to cooperate inachieving this. The union will cooperate in encouraging compliance with the rules regarding health,safety, and sanitation. The company will continue in effect the Group Insurance Program andRetirement Plan during the life of this Agreement.Positions of the PartiesThe UnionThe union stated that Boyce is an exemplary employee with 27 years of service at AmericanNewsprint Corporation. On April 25, 2014, Boyce was injured on the job when an automatic doormalfunctioned. Issues with the door had been reported to management on numerous occasions andmanagement has been negligent about repairing the door. Therefore, management is at fault forentire situation and should be held responsible. The injuries cost Boyce six months of work, whichresulted in lost income in wages as a result of Workers’ Compensation, and those lost wagesadversely affected the calculation of vacation pay for the next year. This is no way to treat a long-term employee with an excellent work record. Boyce has been harmed for doing his job.The union closed:For the foregoing reasons, the union requests that the grievance be sustained and the Grievant, Boycebe made whole for his losses.The CompanyThe company’s maintenance department as well as department supervision tried on severaloccasions to correct the defect in the door and were unable to do so. The company communicatedto all employees and alerted them to stand clear of the door and to be on alert.The company was eventually able to resolve the issue with some electrical modifications tothe door.The grievant argued at step 2 and step 3 of the grievance procedure that past practice wasthe basis for his complaint. The union failed to show that a past practice existed for either of Boyce’srequest, that is, reimbursement of insurance contribution during his absence or a pay adjustment forvacation.Ms. Joyce Rambo confirmed that she had always required reimbursement of employeecontributions to medical insurance upon return to work and that she has never made an adjustmentto the vacation provisions as argued by Boyce. Ms. Rambo confirmed that Boyce’s case washandled in the same manner and with the same consideration as similar cases in the past. Twoemployees mentioned by Boyce never returned to work after their absences for the deductions to bemade. Additionally, Rambo confirmed that she has never made vacation adjustments, as stated bythe grievant in the step 2 grievance. The consistency in administering this policy has never beenmade on the basis of who was at fault in the accident.The company argued that this is a case in which the union is trying to seek througharbitration what it has not obtained in negotiations. The union failed to show that the CBA containslanguage that would require the company to pay Boyce. Therefore, the arbitrator should not give theunion something in this arbitration that it did not obtain in negotiations. The company has heldseveral negotiations since the insurance contribution requirement was introduced, and this requesthas never been introduced. The union is in effect asking the arbitrator to add an additional benefit tothe labor agreement, which bypasses the negotiation process and is beyond what the law requires.The company requested that the arbitrator uphold the company’s position in this matter.
Post a Comment