N630M2 Human Resource Management : Assessment Answers

Answer:

Introduction to the case 

This case relates to the company Roe services Inc who violates the collective bargaining agreement when the company reduced the working hours of the whole time employee to 35 hours per week per person. This case amounted to NLBR charge. Collective bargaining agreement was entered between an employer and the union. The employer can cut or reduce the benefits of the employees if it is done on a non-discriminatory manner. If the employer reduces the benefits then the company has to provide a notice. In Australia, the employment regulation provides that the employer shall reduce the income of the employee by requiring prior notice. Employers who are subject to wage or collective bargaining agreements with their employees must comply with the terms of their agreements. Some collective bargaining agreements specifically require employers to provide their employees with a minimum number of weekly hours. In the case, the company has reduced the weekly hours of the employees, which resulted in unfair trade practice.

The agreements, which cause disputes, are resolved through dispute resolution process. The dispute between them is resolved by the arbitrator or is a typical resolution, which ends to binding arbitration. This helps in easy resolution of the industrial dispute, which arises between the employers and the labors working in the industry. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has granted to resolve these mutually agreed upon dispute and resolution of this process of dispute (Benjamin, 2012).

The Government Employees Union herein the employee or labor file an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB claiming that an employee was fired because of his union while they were pursuing a grievances through the grievances arbitration process(Bosch,2012). Collective bargaining agreement is the ultimate goal through which the bargaining process establishes the wages,  hours, promotions and other employment terms and procedures by which the dispute arising are settled (Feldacker & Hayes, 2014). The collective bargaining agreement cannot address every workplace issue that might arise in the future, unwritten customs and past practices, external law, and informal agreements are as important to the collective bargaining agreement as the written instrument itself (Fisk,2014).

Enactment of the Affordable Care Act had on the Company’s action

The NLRA also prohibits employers and unions from taking certain actions that would interfere with these employee rights; the NLRA creates between unions and employers. These actions are called unfair labor practices. Interfering with an employee is right to organize, join, or assist a union; engage in collective bargaining. National Labor Relations Board looks upon all the facts, which started with the group and played a role for organizing the group whether the management attends meetings or otherwise sets the group's agenda. 

Affordable Care Act prohibits waiting periods for employee health insurance for a period of 90days, the employers can reduce the waiting, the employer owed the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain over the waiting period. It reality it was discussed by the Board that the employees are forced to take significant changes to comply with the new law. This obligation requires that employers have a robust and sophisticated understanding of the requirements of the law, and those aspects that may be discretionary, with enough advance time to allow for notice and bargaining with the Union (Green, 2014).

Position of the company and lay out its argument

Employers are responsible for paying unemployment compensation. Most of the employers reduce the working shift and cut down the hours of .The grievance should be sustained because the Employer violated the NLRA by circumventing the Union and bargaining over terms and conditions of employment with the employee. The Company contacted the union after and negotiated a weekend schedule that included total 35 hours of work. The Union contends that it is an unfair labor practice for the Employer to bargain new terms and conditions of employment to work on reduced work shifts. The Union did not consent to negotiations by the Company with the employee. The Employer engaged in an unfair labor practice when it negotiated the new shift of reduced working hours weekly. The new schedule unilaterally created by the Employer had a negative impact upon the amount of reduced working hours weekly by bargaining unit employees under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (Twomey, 2012). 

The company has set out the arguments that Companies are converting their full time employees to part time employees. Since the employees would work for 35hours then they would be considered as part time and they would be paid less wages. Interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to organize or bargain collectively (Wredberg,2015).

References

Benjamin, P. (2012). Labour law beyond employment. Acta Juridica, 2012(1), 21-40.

Bosch, C. (2012). Labour dispute resolution under the 1995 LRA: Problems, pitfalls and potential. Acta Juridica, 2012(1), 120-147.

Feldacker, B. S., & Hayes, M. J. (2014). Labor guide to labor law. Cornell University Press.

Fisk, C. (2014). Collective Actions and Joinder of Parties in Arbitration: Implications of DR Horton and Concepcion.

Green, M. Z. (2014). How the NLRB's Light Still Shines on Anti-Discrimination Law Fifty Years after Title VII.

Twomey, D. (2012). Labor and Employment Law: Text & Cases. Cengage Learning.

Wredberg, N. (2015). Subverting Workers' Rights: Class Action Waivers and the Arbitral Threat to the NLRA. Hastings LJ, 67, 881.