Using the attached Case Study Analysis Guide Template. Read the following case and respond to the questions that follow.You are required to submit a typed, double-spaced, APA format, and grammatically correct document in Times New Roman with Font size set at 12 point with margins of at least 1 inch.Utilize the case study template. Document must include all in-text citation, reference page, and cover page. Only educational sources are allowed. Document must be completely original, no form of plagiarism is tolerated. Any form of Plagiarism warrants a full refund.
The judge noted the undisputed fact that the company offered the four aggrieved employees, who were allegedly the cause of the majority, if not all, of the output and quality problems, their very same jobs back as non-bargaining unit employees. This indicated that there were serious deficiencies in the company’s thinking, or the allegations were gross exaggerations or fabrications. At no time prior to Sept. 1999, when the job classification removal action was put into effect, did anyone in the company ever tell the union that the 1996 agreement was still in effect and that under the agreement the experiment had been declared a failure.
In the judge’s opinion, the record clearly establishes, given the fact that there were discussions and agreements reached during the 1998 negotiations regarding Tester/Assemblers and Tester/Assemblers Trainees’ placement in various articles and section of the CBA, if the parties had intended for the “experimental” language in the 1996 agreement to remain in effect, the company had an obligation to make such known to the negotiating committee.
All experiments have a life span. At some point in time, they are either declared to be a success or a failure. If at the time of the 1998 negotiations the company believed that the experiment was in trouble, they could, and should have made such known to the union, and again made it clear that they wanted the 1996 agreement to remain in effect. The company’s silence in this regard coupled with the incorporation of the Tester/Assembler and Tester/Assembler Trainees’ job classifications into the current agreement is interpreted to mean that the company had concluded that the experiment had been a success.
The judge ruled that the 1996 agreement did not survive the 1998 negotiations and the resulting CBA. The company exceeded its authority when they removed the subject job classifications from the bargaining unit.
- Why would the placement or removal of the job classifications in a bargaining unit have any impact on the quality of the job performed?
- If the company knew that the tester “experiment” was not going well during the negotiations on a new contract, should it have negotiated the issue?
- Was the company justified in attempting to remove the positions from the union?
"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."