Thursday, December 5, 2019

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

Question: Discuss about the Iron steel and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers"? Answer: The Iron steel and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers were members to a collective bargaining agreement that was going to be expired on May 31, 2011. The Union and the Iron steel began negotiations in the month of March hoping that they would soon reach a conclusion by the end of May. However, they were not able to come to an agreement and because of the disparities; the union went on a strike on June 1, 2011. Therefore, it is concluded that the strike was legal in nature (Cohen Feng, 2013). Paragraph 2 was included in the Strike Settlement Agreement. According to Paragraph 2 of the Agreement, the jobs that are filled by the corporation on or after June 1, 2011, as strike replacements shall not be considered as opportunities to which the striking employees shall return to unless strike replacements vacate the jobs. The return of strikers will not relocate the new hires. The new hires shall become members of the Union. However, Iron steel fired 10 of the new hires. They had paid their union dues. The termination was illegal, as according to Paragraph 2 they were not supposed to be terminated. This is the breach of an agreement. The ten-strike replacements had paid their Union dues and had become a member of the Union of the Iron steel. The strike replacements were not supposed to be terminated unless the strikers made the position vacant. The termination of the workers was not legal. Yes, the Union can represent the ten strike replacements. Since they had paid the Union fees and according to Paragraph 2 of the Strike Agreement, they were to be treated as the members of the Union. Therefore, the strike replacements can take the support of the Union members for their unlawful termination as opposed to Paragraph 2. Yes, their grievances are permitted. They are illegally terminated during their course of employment. The cessation of the strike replacements is a breach of contract. The strike replacements can seek for legal help as the Ironsteel authorities have breached the contract on their part. Since the parties did not agree to the terms that were stated in Paragraph 2 of the Agreement, Iron steel can file the rebuttal stating that it was a reflection of the parties non-agreement to Paragraph 2 of the Agreement (Brndle Heinbach, 2013). The Union on termination of 12 highest paid workers can consider the termination as illegal discrimination that is termination on the ground of discrimination based on their seniority and high payment. This is not a justified ground for dismissal. For termination of an employee, the reasons need to be justified and fair. The terminations were to be considered legal. The reason behind this is that in the absence of any employment contracts including bargaining agreements, employees are employees at will. In this case, negotiations related to the bargaining were ongoing. Therefore, the termination was legal. In the absence of the bargaining agreement, the termination was therefore not a valid one (Deakin Morris, 2012). Reference List: Cohen-Vogel, L., Feng, L. (2013). Seniority provisions in collective bargaining agreements and the Teacher Quality Gap.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,35(3), 324-343. Brndle, T., Heinbach, W. D. (2013). Opening clauses in collective bargaining agreements: More flexibility to save jobs?.Jahrbuch fr Wirtschaftswissenschaften/Review of Economics, 159-191.. Deakin, S. F., Morris, G. S. (2012).Labour law. Hart publishing. Rose, V., Bailey, D., McNab, A., John, L. E., Turner, J. (Eds.). (2014).Bellamy Child European Union Law of Competition.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.