You be the arbitrator: Peer Response Discussion

Grading Criteria

You are required to respond with depth, breadth and insight to the discussion question(s) as well as one of your class members. Your response to the discussion question(s) must be tied back to the chapter material and outside research is expected. When I ask you to support your answer, you are expected to combine opinion with, minimum 2, citations, insight from your experiences, observations of others experiences, analysis of the facts/information and a conclusion. PLEASE do not limit your citations to just the book! Find other supporting material outside of the class structure.  You are also required to answer the question posed by the instructor and class members’. (Please note: The guidance outlined above will contribute to you “meeting the expectations” for the discussion. Additional participation will contribute to a grade that will “exceed the expectations” for the discussion

The combined original reply and two responses are worth up to 20 points per student. The criteria used to determine the point distribution will be:

Original Reply: 10 points
Initiated Peer Reply (2): 8 points 
Uses of sources: 2 points

Cite examples, textbook material, or your own supporting material to back up your opinion.

Action: Read the below peer discussion board posts and provide your classmate with feedback on your opinion of their position. Do you agree and why? Do you disagree and why? Replies to your class members’ are intended to move the discussion forward. Telling them that they simply did a good job is not acceptable. Statements like “I feel”, “I believe” and/or “I think” are difficult to measure and, highly, subjective. Asking a question or two about the position they took will move the discussion forward. Replies are 200 word minimum

Peer Response Reply 1 You be the arbitrator : Negotiations 

by David Alcenius – Thursday, October 17, 2019, 10:48 AM

 

The CBA Article XXXIV Section 2 clearly explains the process for contract negotiations and the procedure for beginning contract negotiations. Both parties are required to give each other 30 days notice for the intent to renegotiate. Furthermore, both parties need to meet within 10 days of the end date of the contract. The first meeting will allow both sides to present their changes to the contract (Carrell, 2014). These are the negotiation rules that both the union and the company agreed to in the CBA.

The meeting on June 1 gave both side the opportunity to express their intended changes to the contract. The meeting ended at 4pm, but the company was not ready to issue its proposed changes until 4:30pm. Following the meeting, the union was under no obligation to wait for the company to issue a proposal that should have been prepared for the meeting. The company’s negotiator had from April 22 to June 1 to create a proposal for the union. However, he/she did not create the proposal for the June 1 meeting.

In my opinion, the company did not follow the CBA agreement when proposing its changes to the union. Therefore, the union is not obligated to bargain regarding the proposal issued on June 2. The company and the union could have done a few things differently in order to avoid this issue. The company’s negotiator could have sent the proposal by email to the union negotiators on June 1 so that the union had the proposal in hand on the first day of negotiations. Furthermore, the company’s negotiator could have had the proposal ready by June 1, since he had roughly a month and a half to prepare for the negotiations. Additionally, the union representatives could have waited an additional 30 minutes to see the proposal.

In order to avoid this issue in the future, the union and the company could extend the timeline for proposal changes to two or three days instead of the first day. Furthermore, the negotiators could extend meeting times to accommodate lengthy changes. Finally, both sides could also be more prepared for the negotiations and have their proposals ready by the first date of negotiations.

References

Carrell, M. & Heavrin, C. (2014) Labor relations and collective bargaining: Private and public sectors. Tenth Edition. Pearson Education, New York.

Peer Response Reply 2 You be the arbitrator : Negotiations 

You Be the Arbitrator: Negotiations 

by Joshua Albo – Wednesday, October 16, 2019, 9:09 PM

 

Explain why the relevant provisions of the CBA as applied to the facts of this case dictate the award.

      In this arbitration the company had more than enough time to have all their facts lined up and ready for negotiation, yet come June 1st they were unable to effectively manage their time and were unable to propose their “noneconomic.” Proposal to the Union until the following day. It seems to me that the company contacted the union over a month in advance that they wanted to propose a new modification to their current wage scale and lower their wages to be closer to their competitors. The company followed the CBA’s first step, “Should either party desire to discontinue or modify the existing agreement upon any termination date, at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of such intent must be given to the other party hereto” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2012, pg.203).

Then the next step of the provision was, “n the event of notice of cancellation or modification of the agreements, it shall be the duty of the parties to meet in conference not less than ten(10) days prior to the expiration date of said agreement for the purpose of negotiating new or modified agreements” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2012, pg.203).  The company held a meeting with the union member before the ten days of the expiration date. The company was on the right path, and everything was falling in line with the CBA agreement and then came the June 1st, the first day of negotiations. Which meant, “It is further agreed that proposed changes or new agreements shall be presented not later than the first day of the conference by the party serving notice” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2012, pg.203). Technically, this case was in the union’s favor until brought to arbitration because, as the provision states, the proposals can be presented to later than the first day of negotiations.

The company was awarded because of the wording of the provision and the fact that the union was made aware of the economic proposal on May 14th, which was before the June 1st meeting. Since the article only state that the article must be proposed by the first day of negotiations favors the company since they technically presented the proposal on May 14th before the expiration and before June 1st.

As an Arbitrator, I would award the Company in this case due to the lack of detail in the article. Now, if the article were more detailed and stated clearly that the proposal could only be presented on the first day of negotiations, I would’ve sided with the union, but due to the uncertainty, the company should win this case. While doing the research, I came across this quote, “There are a variety of clauses in a typical collective bargaining agreement which can be characterized as explosive. They are “clauses without boundaries,” clauses which may generate numerous disputes without giving specific guidance to an arbitrator trying to resolve them” (Abrams, 1979, pg.444). In this CBA, this was a clause without boundaries, and the deadlines were clear, but the days effective to present the proposal wasn’t.  Specifics are essential, and so is the documentation of every conversation; this is why when in important dealings like negotiations, make sure your aware of the policy and provide documentation of every piece of communication on the topic. In my current position as a payroll benefits coordinator having documentation on everything is vital to protecting your employment and when dealing with terminations or FMLA, everything needs to be documented and detailed as possible. Since the company had documentation of the May 14th conversation with the union representative they were able to provide this information for arbitration.

References

Abrams, R. I. (1979). Negotiating in Anticipation of Arbitration: Some Guideposts for the Initiated (2nd ed., Vol. 29). Case Western Reserve University.

Carrell, M. R., & Heavrin, C. R. (2012). Labor relations and collective bargaining: private and public sectors (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

You be the

arbitrator:

Peer

Response D

iscussio

n

Grading Criteria

You are required to respond with depth, breadth and insight to the discussion question(s) as well as

one of

your class members. Your response to the discussion question(s) must be tied

back to the chapter material

and outside research is expected. When I ask you to support your answer, you are expected to combine

opinion with, minimum 2, citations, insight from your experiences, observations of others experiences, analysis

of the facts/

information and a conclusion.

PLEASE do not limit your citations to just the book!

Find other

supporting material outside of the class structure.

You are also required to answer the question posed by the

instructor and class members’. (Please note: The gu

idance outlined above will contribute to you “meeting the

expectations” for the discussion. Additional participation will contribute to a grade that will “exceed the

expectations” for the discussion

The combined original reply and two responses are worth

up to

20 points per student. The criteria

used to determine the point distribution will be:

Original Reply:

10

points

Initiated Peer

Reply (2):

8

points

Uses of sources:

2 points

Cite examples, textbook material, or your own supporting material to bac

k up your opinion.

Action:

Read the below peer discussion board posts and provide your classmate with feedback on your

opinion of their position. Do you agree and why? Do you disagree and why?

Replies

to your class members’

are intended to move the discussion forward. Telling them that they simply did a good job is not acceptable.

Statements like “I feel”, “I believe” and/or “I think” are difficult to measure and, highly, subjective. Asking a

question

or two about the position they took will move the discussion forward

.

Replies are 200 word

minimum

You be the arbitrator: Peer Response Discussion

Grading Criteria

You are required to respond with depth, breadth and insight to the discussion question(s) as well as one of

your class members. Your response to the discussion question(s) must be tied back to the chapter material

and outside research is expected. When I ask you to support your answer, you are expected to combine

opinion with, minimum 2, citations, insight from your experiences, observations of others experiences, analysis

of the facts/information and a conclusion. PLEASE do not limit your citations to just the book! Find other

supporting material outside of the class structure. You are also required to answer the question posed by the

instructor and class members’. (Please note: The guidance outlined above will contribute to you “meeting the

expectations” for the discussion. Additional participation will contribute to a grade that will “exceed the

expectations” for the discussion

The combined original reply and two responses are worth up to 20 points per student. The criteria

used to determine the point distribution will be:

Original Reply: 10 points

Initiated Peer Reply (2): 8 points

Uses of sources: 2 points

Cite examples, textbook material, or your own supporting material to back up your opinion.

Action: Read the below peer discussion board posts and provide your classmate with feedback on your

opinion of their position. Do you agree and why? Do you disagree and why? Replies to your class members’

are intended to move the discussion forward. Telling them that they simply did a good job is not acceptable.

Statements like “I feel”, “I believe” and/or “I think” are difficult to measure and, highly, subjective. Asking a

question or two about the position they took will move the discussion forward. Replies are 200 word

minimum

 

"Get 20% OFF on a Similar Assignment!! Place Your Order and Use this Coupon Code: SUPER20"

buy custom essays