Assignment Writing Help on Labour Relations

Labour Relations

Question 1

According to the CEO of Non-union retailer Target, third party representation is unproductive and does not add any value to members of an organization. This statement is not true because it is the third parties that bring about balance in efficiency, equity and voice in an organization. Without a third party representation, the bargaining power between employee and employers is not equal. Usually the employer has more power and hence the workers end up losing because they do not have enough power to bargain. The unequal bargaining power is demonstrated by the poor conditions that employees work in and the long working hours with low wages. As a result the employees’ interests are not taken care of and hence the need for a third party representation. The introduction of third parties such as labour unions and the government will ensure that the bargaining power between the workers and their employers is balanced (Budd, 2012). As a result, the workers will be able to bargain for better pay and better working environment. With better working conditions and pay, the workers will feel satisfied and hence will be motivated to work harder thereby increasing the organization’s productivity. An increase in the organization productivity will lead to increased revenue meaning the shareholders’ wealth will also increase.

In the absence of third party representation, business can decide to exploit customers by charging very high prices in order to make super normal profits. The business will make super normal profits in the short run but in the long run they may lose customers leading to a decrease in sales. Therefore there is need for a third part to represent the customers to ensure that they are not exploited by malicious businesses (Suffield, 2005). Therefore in order to ensure productivity there must be a balance between efficiency, equity and voice. This balance can only be achieved by use of third parties.

Question 3

A variety of challenges arises when labour negotiators decides to shift from traditional bargaining to integrative bargaining. These challenges make it very difficult to shift to integrative bargaining. This is because unlike traditional bargaining where the parties involved work toward opposing purposes, integrative bargaining works towards achieving a common purpose. This type of bargaining requires a high level of cooperation and trust between the parties. This is usually very difficult to establish because one party may feel like their interest are being undermined. For example where an employer decides to reduce the rate at which an employee travels in order to ensure the employee’s stability, the employee may feel like the employer does want him/her to enjoy the benefits that come with travelling (Budd, 2012). Another challenge that makes shifting to integrative bargaining difficult is the fact that one party may not buy into the approach, instead they might come determined to use a win-lose strategy. This will mean that the other party will be forced to use the same approach and as a result integrative bargaining will not take place.

In order to successful achieve this type of bargaining, the negotiators must first establish a functional working relationship by first identifying common interest between the parties. The negotiator should also view the negotiation as a business deal and not a conflict and finally they should think long term and not short term (Burchill, 2008). The negotiator can also organize combined training for both parties so that one does not feel cheated. This will help build the trust and cooperation needed between the parties involved in the bargaining process.

Union negotiators usually find it more difficult to shift from traditional bargaining to integrative bargaining as compared to company negotiators because most businesses consider unions their enemies and hence there is minimal trust and cooperation between them and unions.

Question 5

As the human resource director, John Arnett should not be compensated for his holiday leave because he did not fulfil the work requirement for holiday pay. John is supposed to work for 10hours per day and four days in a week if there is no holiday. If there is a holiday then he should work one day less. However on this particular week, he worked less hours because he did not work on Wednesday and hence he is not entitled to the Tuesday holiday pay. In addition, John did not get an official communication from his supervisor approving his Wednesday personal leave. Therefore his absence from work on Wednesday is what caused him his Labour Day holiday pay. This is because for him to be entitled for the holiday pay, he is required to work for 10hours per day for the other days that are not holidays.

As the business agent for Local 444, I would argue that John should be given his holiday pay. I would base my argument on the fact that John informed the clerk of his absent from work on Wednesday as per the company regulations. The company regulations require one to inform the company of their personal leave an hour and a half before the beginning of the next shift. However, the company laws do not outline whether an employee should wait for approval from the supervisor before taking a personal leave meaning the laws are not precise. John informed the clerk of his absence several hours before his next shift. Hence he followed the regulations and his personal leave was justified. This means that the company should give him his holiday pay. The fact that John did not receive an official communication from his supervisor cannot be used as a reason for not paying John because there are no such conditions in the company policy.

As an arbitrator, I would rule in the favour of John. My decision would be based on the fact that John’s personal leave was communicated in good time and hence he met the work requirement for the holiday pay. The company policy only states the timeframe that one should communicate their personal leave. It does not outline whether an official communication is required from ones supervisor and hence John cannot be blamed for not going to work. Therefore John should be given the holiday pay.

Question 6

As the personnel director of Ditchburn city, I would argue that the transfer of Jose was according to the agreement and that there was no breach. I would base my argument on the fact that Jose transfer was because he was bilingual and not because of any other reason. According to the seniority clause in the agreement, transfers would be based on certain uniform procedure and as from other workers transfers, transfers were based on seniority and language capability. Therefore the transfer of Jose was justified because it was based on the fact he was bilingual. Therefore there was no form of discrimination

As the city union official, I would argue the Jose’s transfer violated the agreement. Despite the fact that there were other junior dispatchers, the city’s human resource personnel decided to choose Jose to transfer. This is considered unequal treatment because Jose was not pleased with the transfer especially because there were other junior staffs that would have been given that particular shift. Another violation of the agreement was on discrimination. Although the transfer was because Jose was bilingual, the transfer can also be because of the race. They transferred him because he could Spanish which can also mean he was transferred because of his race. Therefore the agreement that states that the city officials shall not discriminate against race has been violated. In addition, the procedure for the transfer is not based on a uniform process. The city officials should have considered other junior dispatcher before considering Jose who was more senior. The argument that he is bilingual does not hold water because there is no provision for such a clause in the agreement.

As an arbitrator I would rule in favour of Jose. I would base my decision on the fact that the city officials have not followed a uniform procedure in the transfer of Jose. There is a difference between merits and sceptical skills and transfers should be based on merits (Budd, 2012). The company argument that the transfer was based on Jose’s language ability is something that the company did not include in the agreement and hence that argument is null and void. Therefore Jose transfer is considered an unfair treatment and hence a violation of the agreement. This means that the city officials of Ditchburn should compensate Jose accordingly.

References

Budd, J. (2012). Labour Relations: striking a balance (4th ed.). New York: McGraw – Hill.

Burchill, F. (2008). Labour relations (3rd ed.). Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Suffield, L. (2005). Labour relations. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall.