Labor relations management
Fact Pattern 1
It is obvious that the union breached its obligation of fair representation to Bryant. First, he union suppressed Brant into saying under what basis he left the cream horn add-ons, because it selfishly protected itself from being sued by the company.”You can’t say that…the company can sue the union”. The fact that the union knew it could be sued therefore meant that the union’s mistake, if at all it was, of leaving the add-ons was sacrificed by one person. In short words, Bryant was sacrificed on the altar of the union’s error. Second, the union had the company’s point of weakness and therefore could use it against it that Foster had urged them that no unnecessary add-ons were to be taken. Which point of weakness? The shop steward himself had “instituted, or at least condoned, another stoppage”. Foster had told Bryant that, it was up to the shop steward to decide.
The fact that the shop steward had authorized another stoppage therefore meant that the Bryant’s case was discriminative since the steward wasn’t punished (Anonymous). Since both the shop steward and the Bryant had been following instructions and of which both of them enforced-Bryant being told by Foster and the steward by the union- it is the union that could be punished instead of Bryant because Bryant was simply following its instructions and the company knew this since it intimidated Bryant into what he had been saying opining that the company could sue it. Therefore the standard duty of representation could both to the steward and Bryant.
There was the union’s breach of representation and it could pay the price by being disbanded since it directed the instructions and intimidated Bryant into revealing fearing the company’s retaliation. The Nissen Company wasn’t supposed to pay not anything because the employees were simply decreasing the input.
Fact Pattern 2
The discipline of the ABC union officials could be considered an unfair labor practice. They ABC officials knew that regardless of the Harborside demanding that they cross the picket, they would be held responsible if they convinced the ABC members to cross the line, since the ABC members would not return to work.
If the ABC officials actively participated in the walkout by leading the strike, they could have crossed the picket but they would not have been disciplined in real sense since the company would have booby trapped itself by “demanded that the ABC union officials cross the picket.” Therefore, if the ABC members could have gone on a strike after being authorized by Harborside to cross the picket, they could have won over Harborside.
Fact Pattern 3
Using the cause standard, I wouldn’t uphold the termination because using the logic of words said by the chief steward, “ I don’t think it went well and I wouldn’t go to South Philly anytime soon”, it could be taken that he was threatening the manager. The words couldn’t have had any effect if the grievant denied so or if he hadn’t said, “If you keep going the way you are going, your life is going to be a lot shorter” of which was a threat. To cap it all, the manager had a daughter in South Philly and so it meant that he was threatened into ever visiting his daughter. In all cases, even though he was framed by the manager, the termination was fair because he never denied his words whose logic meant it was a threat. The cause principles used were logic of the words of which the grievant didn’t deny. Progressive discipline is the act whereby the disciplinary penalties mete out to the violators of work rules are stiffer every time where the violations are done again.
Anonymous. (n.d.). Labor Relations MGMT 6050.