research paper
MAN 4401 Labor relations management
Duty of fair representation
If the court rules that the union has no duty to represent these former employees, they cannot pursue their grievance against the company. The court’s ruling is following the guidelines mentioned in the contract, which states, “that laid-off employees would accrue continuous service credit for two years and would retain continuous service credit for an additional five-year period. One of the benefits was a commitment by the company that these laid-off employees would be offered future employment opportunities with the company in the event positions opened up.” This result is fair towards the company because the company did rehire some employees but not all. The company is not obligated to rehire everyone it laid-off and did follow negotiated contract to provide future employment if such opportunity came up.
The union is not obligated to negotiate their employment, because the contract is expired, the total number of years which offered continuous service expired. It was only seven years for the contract and the company did not offer employment opportunities for a lifetime. Regarding the former employees, it is not entirely fair that nobody can help them in this situation. However, they should know the terms of the contract do not mention continuous offer of employment and the union can’t help them get their jobs back after eleven years.
I do not think it is unreasonable for these laid-off employees to expect the union’s help eleven years later. It is unreasonable they decided to sue the union on this issue. The main part of the problem is that contract did expire and the union does not have the power to give them back their jobs. If the company and the union had known that eleven years later there would be employment opportunities, they most likely would negotiated terms for this and the union would make sure employees get their jobs back. Such opportunity would be mentioned in the contract
Duty of fair representation
If the court rules that the union has no duty to represent these former employees, they cannot pursue their grievance against the company. The court’s ruling is following the guidelines mentioned in the contract, which states, “that laid-off employees would accrue continuous service credit for two years and would retain continuous service credit for an additional five-year period. One of the benefits was a commitment by the company that these laid-off employees would be offered future employment opportunities with the company in the event positions opened up.” This result is fair towards the company because the company did rehire some employees but not all. The company is not obligated to rehire everyone it laid-off and did follow negotiated contract to provide future employment if such opportunity came up.
The union is not obligated to negotiate their employment, because the contract is expired, the total number of years which offered continuous service expired. It was only seven years for the contract and the company did not offer employment opportunities for a lifetime. Regarding the former employees, it is not entirely fair that nobody can help them in this situation. However, they should know the terms of the contract do not mention continuous offer of employment and the union can’t help them get their jobs back after eleven years.
I do not think it is unreasonable for these laid-off employees to expect the union’s help eleven years later. It is unreasonable they decided to sue the union on this issue. The main part of the problem is that contract did expire and the union does not have the power to give them back their jobs. If the company and the union had known that eleven years later there would be employment opportunities, they most likely would negotiated terms for this and the union would make sure employees get their jobs back. Such opportunity would be mentioned in the contract