Issues in the case Did the company violate the Labor Agreement by using Glass Department employees to work overtime and temporary transferring employees into the department to work when Mr. Ronald Petrie was laid off? Should the company have called Ronald Petrie back to work? The Glass Department consisted of five employees, on March 20, 1997 the company laid off Ronald Petrie leaving four employees to work the department. On April 3, 1997 an employee retired now leaving only three people to work the department.After laying-off an employee and one employee retiring the company began transferring employees from different departments as well as having the department employees work overtime. Union Position The union’s position is the company violated Article 12 section 9 by not recalling Mr.
Ronald Petrie back to work. The union points out how much overtime was required for the department previous years when it had five employees working in the department. The union also points out how much department transfer the company used as well.Since the glass department is requiring so much overtime and departmental transfer it is obvious a position should be opened in the department. The union feels the position should be opened and Mr.
Ronald Petrie should return back to his job. The union points out how the company previously recalled to recognize opening for very short intervals. The overtime has been going on for over six weeks and the opening should be recalled. Mr. Ronald Petrie should also be made whole for all monies lost in the June 11 thru early October period.
Management positionManagement position is the company has the sole right to decide when an opening exists in a department. The company feels they have completely operated within the labor agreement. The increased workload was not traditional glass room work. The company also states that in the thirty four weeks from when Mr.
Ronald Petrie was laid off only seven weeks had one hundred and sixty hours or more of glass room work. In reference to the other recalls once again the company had to decide there was an opening and if in fact the company decided it was an opening in the glass department then they will gladly call back Mr.Petrie for the opening. Contract Language According to Section 3. 2 the company retains the sole and exclusive control over the direction, instruction, and control of employees including, but not limited to, the determination of the number and qualifications of employees to perform work.
The company also has the right to select, hire lay off, reclassify, upgrade, downgrade, promote, transfer, discipline, suspend, or retire employees. The company feels they acted within their means with the hours of overtime and departmental transfers.Article 12 section 9 states employees shall be recalled from layoff in seniority order in the job family or families from which they were displaced as a result of a reduction in force. As openings occur in the classification from which an employee was removed due to a reduction in force he or she will be returned to that classification in seniority order.
The union feels because of the overtime required in the department there is a need in the department and Article 12 section 9 should be used in filling the void. Analysis It is in my opinion that the company did not violate the Labor Agreement.A company should have the right to determine when and where a position is needed within the company. According to Article three section two the company acted within their means.
Although the department did require overtime for a period a time it is still up to the company to decide if they want to create a position or recall employees that have previously been laid off. The company justified the reason for the workload increase as well as the reason of why they did not do any recalls for the position because the workload fluctuated from week to week.
