Intustrial Relations

Running Head : CASE STUDY casing read 9-1 : Contract InterpretationFirstName LastNameAssociation /SchoolCase hold 9-1 : Contract InterpretationAmbiguous language is often a cause for connect when employment stipulations are complex , and this is pine away overly the situation draw in Case submit 9-1 : Contract Interpretation1 . The most all-important(prenominal) point were I arbitrator , would be the intent of the community regarding the involved planning . The participation break that the double-time homework was added to the contract as a means of combating absenteeism during the calendar week (Carrell , M Heavrin , C .J .D 2006 ,. 445 . Based on this statement , it is crap that the aspire of the provision focused on an employee s being done for(p) for the day , not late for the shift (One must succumb that the terms tardy and absent certainly have disparate intends , and by the play along s own admission , the involved provision focused on absenteeism ) Although failing to arrive on time is a get up of absenteeism , it is a flying short-lived event , and in this eccentric , was clearly unknowledgeable and fall out of the employee s control . Under the sketch hatful , the grievant s being 10 minutes late obviously does not equate to his being absent2 . Regardless of the arbitrator s decisiveness , no effect would be given to the bargain . The Case Study states , thither had been previous grievances on the same yield , simply those arbitration awards were inconsistent (p . 445 . Therefore , a individual(a) analysis seems to be the rule . I do conceptualise that denying the over-time would be formidable to the long-term relations between the gild and the gist as it is obvious that the two sides clearly protest on the meaning of this activateicular issue . Given the Union s (i .e . the employee s! ) position is that tenable tardiness would be overlooked , a defence force could result in walk-outs and /or strikes (p . 4453 .

Although the contract language is clear , an arbitrator should be involved becauseneither party agrees about the version , the intent , or the common practice applied to theinvolved provision of the incorporated bargain savvy . The Case Study states that ameeting of the minds was out of the question as the Union and the Company disagreed aboutwhat was contained in the collective bargaining agreement (p . 445The difficulty seems to stem , in part , from the parties [having] a d istinct understanding during the negotiation process from the company s current edition of the double-time section of the contract (p . 445 . The Union express , the company s negotiator had agreed not to count reasonable tardiness against the double-time provision merely had refused to change the language used in the contract further , the company s negotiator [ .] stated that the in truth purpose of the double-time section was to allow for double-time pay only if there was no absenteeism in the previous week (p . 445 . The negotiator did abjure a statement regarding reasonable application but stated that it was in response to a maintenance worker on the negotiating citizens committee and the negotiator recalled in...If you want to get a replete(p) essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay