CHAPTER 6: END CASE DISCUSSION

Case Study 6.1: Surface Bargaining

Decision:

The arbitrator found that the substance of the companys proposals and its inability or refusal to alter any of its proposals did result in bad faith bargaining. In addition, the arbitrator found that the companys response to the unions objections to the breadth of its original management rights and zipper clauses was to submit new proposals that were even broader. Clearly, the arbitrator found that the companys insistence on proposals that were unusually harsh, and would result in the employees having fewer rights than they had before the contract, was an unfair labor practice.

Questions for Discussion

1. Was the company bargaining in good faith? Explain your answer.

Yes: There is no requirement that the parties agreejust that they meet and bargain. The company was bargaining, although agreement was not reached.

No: Although the company appeared to be bargaining, its refusal to agree to fairly routine demands indicated it did not actually intend to bargain, that is, the give-and-take necessary to successful bargaining.

2. Which company proposal was the most important in determining the in good faith issue?

Number 8refusing to put a nondiscrimination clause in the agreement even while acknowledging that such was already available. (Any point with some reasoning would be correct.)