Share your comments on the following post:

Taking the place of an arbitrator, I am in favor of the union. Taking a look at one fact in the case, under Article IX Section 2B "It is intended that the Employer retain the right to keep the same employees on the job unexpectedly given high priority or delayed" (Sloane & Witney, 2010). The job that was needed was regarding a safety concern on the Navy's F-14 Tomcat. Alongside this, the assignment was notified on July 31st and the case even says that no other employees besides Arthur and Duncan. "The Union, contending that it had 'on numerous occasions' brought alleged continuity os skills abuses to Management's attention, filed a formal grievance on August 13, 2000, asking that Management "pay all employees that have passed over" Specifically, it claims as Article IX, Section 2 violation because continuity of skills should not have been used, in its opinion, to assign Arthur and Duncan overtime on the two days involved here" (Sloane & Witney, 2010). This is a violation of the contract on management's end by overlooking all other employees and going to Arthur and Duncan which, even though this is not within the case and therefore not technically evidence, what management is showcasing is favoritism towards these two employees. "Employees must be qualified to perform the overtime assignments in an efficient manner. Employee must be physically able to perform job and capable of completing the work with reasonable indoctrination or instructions" (Sloane & Witney, 2010). The question that as an arbitrator, I should be asking, is what prevented management from being able to provide reasonable instruction to any other employees besides Arthur and Duncan? Management was in violation of their contract and that is why as the arbitrator I am in favor of the union.

Reference:

Sloane, A. A., & Witney, F. (2010). Labor Relations (13th ed.). New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.