Answer the question for each case.

Question: As an arbitrator, how would you rule? Why?

Case 8

case 9

BACKGROUND The Bangs Manufacturing Company made heavy equip- ment used primarily for rock crushing and asphalt paving. Although this business was seasonal and cyclical, the com- pany normally employed approximately 850 production and maintenance employees (on two shifts) at its produc- tion facility. These production and maintenance employ- ees were represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Lodge 138. Due to the cyclical and seasonal nature of the industry and the fear of job loss, the union fought hard to win contract provisions pertaining to subcontracting. All of the heavy equipment the company manufactured used belt conveyors, which were supported by a wide vari- ety of wing pulleys. The company had made these pulleys itself for many years. In fact, making and painting these pulleys were the primary jobs of several employees. The pulleys were traditionally painted orange. During the fall a salesman from The Pulley Place made an unsolicited visit to the company's director of procure- ment, Harold Hill. The Pulley Place made nothing but pul- leys. The salesman showed Hil a variety of pulleys in The Pulley Place catalog that could be used directly on the machinery made by the Bangs Manufacturing Company without any necessary alterations. Intrigued by the idea, Hill had some others in the com- pany verify that the pulleys in The Pulley Place catalog could be used in the manufacturing process without any alterations or modifications. Although the pulleys were a Slightly different size, the results showed that the pulleys could be used without modification at an estimated sav. ings of 30-60 percent. Thus, the company subsequently ordered pulleys directly from The Pulley Place catalog. No specifications were given to The Pulley Place, and the pul- leys were ordered by catalog number To help avoid con- fusion, the traditional (Bangs Manufacturing Company) part numbers were affered to the pulleys by The Pulley Place. The ordered pulleys were gray. Earlier in the year 295 bargaining unit employees had been laid off due to economic conditions. Several months later a substantial number had been recalled, but there were still many employees on layoff. At that time the work ers started noticing that the pulleys they were using to assemble the heavy equipment were gray, not orange. Upon further investigation, the union discovered that the pulleys were being shipped in. The union subsequently filed the following grievance: By utilizing pulleys made elsewhere, the company is in violation of the collective bargaining agreement because BACKGROUND A plant manufactured approximately 1.200 different alumi- num shapes. About 450 of the shapes were anodized by attaching the aluminum shapes to a rack and then dipping the rack into an anodizing tank. Anodizing was done by teams of two rackers each. Each racker had to do a careful job of securing the aluminum to the rack. Aluminum pieces that were not racked properly could be ruined, causing significant financial loss to the company. Local 491 of the International Chemical Workers Union was the authorized bargaining agent for the production workers of this plant. Christine Hinds was hired by the com- pany on September 15, 1990, and at the time of the griev- ance she was working as an anodyne racker. Ray Davies was hired on July 30, 1990, and was the grievant. While employed by the company, Davies had been clas. sified as a packer helper, saw helper, head sawer (which is the same job grade as racker), fork truck operator, and die cleanup, but never as a racker.On December 3. Davies was laid off by the company due to economic reasons. Thus, he filed a grievance claiming that the company violated the collective bargaining agreement by retaining a worker with less seniority (namely Hinds, who was a racker). At the time of the grievance filing Davies was employed as a saw helper, which was two job grades below racker. TESTIMONY AT THE ARBITRATION HEARING At the grievance hearing Davies testified that although he never was actually classified as a racker, he learned rack ing while working as a second shift forklift operator. He stated that he learned how to be a racker by filling in for 15 or 20 minutes at a time and also by observing rackers at other times. He further testified that he had become a jack-of-all-trades and could have satisfactorily performed the duties of a racker if paired with an experienced racker. At the grievance hearing the plant manager also tes. tified regarding several points. First, had Davies been retained as a racker, he would have been paired with a regular racket Second, Davies was a willing and cooper- ative worker and would be able to do any job after train- ing. Third, in the plant manager's estimation, Davies would probably have required 30 days" training to become as efficient as a normal racker. Fourth, four men bumped into being rackers during the layoffs-one of them was a rack maker who had acquired some experience being a racker by filling in during lunch breaks