Why Is It Important To Respond To Ironsteel Strike?
As the Human Resources Director for Ironsteel, it is a top priority to respond to the various issues surrounding the strike. Topics discussed include the legality of the strike, the impact the strike had on Ironsteel that influenced decision making process, and the consequences to both replacement and long-term employees.
The strike that took place in the summer of 2011 was legal, because it addressed the concerns of employees including disputes over wages and benefits. This type of strike is often described as an economic strike. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) talks about the lawfulness of a strike, “Employees who strike for a lawful object fall into two classes ‘economic strikers’ and ‘unfair labor practice strikers.’ …show more content…
The impasse creates a deadlock effect and prohibits any progress in the settlement. In regards to the ten strike replacements that were laid off and submitted grievances, the claim that will most likely surface will pertain to seeking protection outlined in the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) act. “The Act requires employers to give at least 60 days’ notice of a mass layoff or reduction in force which is not the result of a plant closing” (Correy, n/d). In Ironsteels’ defense, the layoffs were justified as they were not “mass” layoffs. Ten employees were laid off, and the WARN act outlines “mass” as over 100. Since the ten replacement employees already paid their union dues, there is a strong possibility that they will be represented by the union. Ironsteel has the right to hire replacement employees during the strike, as well as recall the permanent employees once the strike ends. “At the end of a strike, unfair labor practice strikers are entitled to be reinstated to their former positions (even if that means the employer has to terminate replacement workers) as long as they have not participated in any misconduct” (SHRM,
The strike that took place in the summer of 2011 was legal, because it addressed the concerns of employees including disputes over wages and benefits. This type of strike is often described as an economic strike. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) talks about the lawfulness of a strike, “Employees who strike for a lawful object fall into two classes ‘economic strikers’ and ‘unfair labor practice strikers.’ …show more content…
The impasse creates a deadlock effect and prohibits any progress in the settlement. In regards to the ten strike replacements that were laid off and submitted grievances, the claim that will most likely surface will pertain to seeking protection outlined in the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) act. “The Act requires employers to give at least 60 days’ notice of a mass layoff or reduction in force which is not the result of a plant closing” (Correy, n/d). In Ironsteels’ defense, the layoffs were justified as they were not “mass” layoffs. Ten employees were laid off, and the WARN act outlines “mass” as over 100. Since the ten replacement employees already paid their union dues, there is a strong possibility that they will be represented by the union. Ironsteel has the right to hire replacement employees during the strike, as well as recall the permanent employees once the strike ends. “At the end of a strike, unfair labor practice strikers are entitled to be reinstated to their former positions (even if that means the employer has to terminate replacement workers) as long as they have not participated in any misconduct” (SHRM,