Labor Relation "Laid Off Glass Worker"
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 position
Management 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
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 position
Management 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