Medical Case Summary
1. The union claimed that the employees lost a benefit when the company changed the use of compensatory time for illness. In light of the fact that the use was permitted if the employee had no sick leave available, how were the employees damaged?
Carrell & Heavrin (2013, p. 438) states that “past practice is recognition of the bargaining history of the two parties involved in a dispute to determine their respective rights in arbitration.” Based on this information, I think that it would be applicable in this situation.
However, in my opinion, the employees were not damaged. The reason is because the employees were still able to use compensatory time as sick time. The only difference is that the employees sick time had to be completely used prior to applying the compensatory time; which would have to be approved by a supervisor. The employee would also have to have available compensatory time in order to apply it as sick time.
2. …show more content…
The company paid employees the same wage whether the time was credited against accrued sick leave, compensatory time, or vacation. Why would the employer care which leave was used?
Even though employees were paid the same wages for sick leave, compensatory time, and vacation time, they all different, serve a different purpose, and probably paid from a different account. For example, if an employee has 10 days’ sick time, it can’t be used if the employee wants to go on vacation. It is also important to note that compensatory time can be used in lieu of cash payment or time off (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013, p. 318). For these reasons, it is important that the company keep track of the type of leave used by
employees.
3. As the arbitrator, give your reason for ruling in the union’s favor.
The foundation of the union’s position is based on past practice. Carrell & Heavrin (2013, p. 438) states that “past practice is recognition of the bargaining history of the two parties involved in a dispute to determine their respective rights in arbitration.” Based on this information, and the fact that it is credible, it would be applicable in this situation. Therefore, as an arbitrator, I would have to rule in the union’s favor.
Now give your reason for ruling in the company’s favor.
“Past practice is recognition of the bargaining history of the two parties involved in a dispute to determine their respective rights in arbitration” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013, p. 318). However, management still has rights in how employees are managed. Since nothing was taken away from the employees, but only restructured, I would have to rule in favor of the company.
Carrell & Heavrin (2013, p. 438) states that “past practice is recognition of the bargaining history of the two parties involved in a dispute to determine their respective rights in arbitration.” Based on this information, I think that it would be applicable in this situation.
However, in my opinion, the employees were not damaged. The reason is because the employees were still able to use compensatory time as sick time. The only difference is that the employees sick time had to be completely used prior to applying the compensatory time; which would have to be approved by a supervisor. The employee would also have to have available compensatory time in order to apply it as sick time.
2. …show more content…
The company paid employees the same wage whether the time was credited against accrued sick leave, compensatory time, or vacation. Why would the employer care which leave was used?
Even though employees were paid the same wages for sick leave, compensatory time, and vacation time, they all different, serve a different purpose, and probably paid from a different account. For example, if an employee has 10 days’ sick time, it can’t be used if the employee wants to go on vacation. It is also important to note that compensatory time can be used in lieu of cash payment or time off (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013, p. 318). For these reasons, it is important that the company keep track of the type of leave used by
employees.
3. As the arbitrator, give your reason for ruling in the union’s favor.
The foundation of the union’s position is based on past practice. Carrell & Heavrin (2013, p. 438) states that “past practice is recognition of the bargaining history of the two parties involved in a dispute to determine their respective rights in arbitration.” Based on this information, and the fact that it is credible, it would be applicable in this situation. Therefore, as an arbitrator, I would have to rule in the union’s favor.
Now give your reason for ruling in the company’s favor.
“Past practice is recognition of the bargaining history of the two parties involved in a dispute to determine their respective rights in arbitration” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013, p. 318). However, management still has rights in how employees are managed. Since nothing was taken away from the employees, but only restructured, I would have to rule in favor of the company.