Violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement - Essay Example

The three grievances that were brought against Ridgeway Minerals Corporation by the company’s certified union generally involved a number of complaints regarding violations of the collective bargaining Agreement and discriminatory actions against the union members. In the first grievance, the union complained about the breaching of the work schedule contract agreement that was contained in the initial collective bargaining agreement.

In all the three grievances touched several Wegner Act sections, particularly about the regulation of collective bargaining agreement engagements. For example, section 8(a) 3 of the act prohibits employees from discriminatory acts such as assigning them less desirable conditions as was witnessed in the allocation of parking slots in the company. The section also stipulates that matters of promotion or transfers should be solely based on seniority, merit, and other criteria for determining eligibility signed in the collective bargaining agreement (Budd, 234). In this regard, the second grievance will also be handled using section 2 of the act. On the other hand, another important section that is in question in the grievances is 7 which clearly states that employees have a right to collective representation and therefore any changes in the collective bargaining agreements such as a change in the agreed work schedule must be subject to collective negotiations.   3. How would you rule in each grievance?   Ruling on each of the grievances should be based on the provisions of the National labor relations act regarding collective bargaining agreements and breach of contract by employers. In my opinion, all three grievances of the union against the company were genuine. In the first grievance, I would rule that the company breached the contract by making changes in the time schedules before a mutual agreement. In the second grievance, the company also violated the collective bargaining agreement by using different criteria of eligibility in giving a temporary transfer to a Janitor instead of Mr. Burn who is best suitable according to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Finally, allocating park workers the farthest car park slots was also discriminatory since it ensured that the workers spent more time between the parking lot and their working stations and this reduced the amount of their monthly bonus.   Case 2__ Does the Duty to Bargain Preclude Unilateral Wage Increases?   In the case study, Winn Dixie Stores Company effected unilateral changes in the wages of the workers arguing that there was no impasse during the negotiations (Budd, 260). On the other hand, the Union’s position of argument was that the Company violated the provisions of section 8(a) 5 and 8(a)1 of the Wagner Act which states that it is an unfair labor practice for employers to refuse to bargain collectively with the employee representatives when making changes to the wage rates and other terms of employment. Questions 1. You are an administrative law judge who has to decide on this case. Which party do you agree with and why? As an administrative law Judge presiding over the case, I would support the position of the employee Union that the company’s action amounted to unfair labor practice as stated in section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. This is because according to section 8(a) 5 of the act, the unilateral wage increase without prior agreements in grievance meetings between the employer and the workers constituted violated the provisions of the act, and therefore the decision of the company constituted unfair labor practice. However, Winn Dixie Company did not violate section 8(a) 1 since they did not rule out further negotiations or attempt to coerce the employees into accepting the proposed wage increase.    2. Does it matter that the parties were not at an impasse? No. The absence of an impasse in the negotiations between the Union of employees and the Company can not justify unilateral changes in the collective bargaining agreement. Although the company argued that the union failed to make counterproposals, the implementation of the unilateral wage increase plan amounted to an unfair labor practice because the Company refused to bargain in good faith with the Union of employees. I, therefore, disagree with the company’s position that there was no impasse because whether there is an impasse or not, any changes in the wages should only be implemented after a mutual agreement between the company and the employee representatives. Read More