Use the above text to answer the question below.

1. As arbitrator, what would be your award and opinion in this arbitration? I need a 500-700 word/ 1-2 page response that's thorough. A response of this sort would be greatly appreciated.

2. Identify the key, relevant section(s), phrases, or words of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and explain why they were critical in making your decision. I need a response that's 500-700 words. A response of this sort would be greatly appreciated.

358 Part III . Cost of Labor Contracts Issue Did the employer have a business necessity to subcontract work that the laid-off employees could perform, or was it union busting? Position of the Parties According to the union, the laid-off employees were fully qualified to provide the services being performed by the TPVs. They had historically performed the full range of work, including the storage and staging of the large PBX equipment, albeit infrequently, and the delivery of critical spare and replacement parts. The union admitted that the employer did not provide the same 24/7/365 operation the TPV did, but the employees were under an "on-call system so that they could perform timely deliveries just as well the TPV. The union pointed out that the employer's decision to consolidate and eliminate warehouses resulted in not having the physical facilities that would have allowed the employees to perform their jobs. It was like a taxicab com- pany that sells all its taxis and then subcontracts with another taxi company to transport its customers. Clearly, the employer's actions were nothing but union busting. Further, the union contended that the employer could not prove it had a business necessity for consolidating its warehouse operation and laying off the employees because it still had considerable losses after the 2000 changes. Clearly, according to the union, the real reason for the layoffs and subcontracting was to bust the union. According to the employer, it had no antiunion animus. It had, in fact, consulted with the union as its strategic plan was put into place and had made an effort to place laid-off employees within the confines of its scaled-back operations. The TPV contracts had been entered into prior to the 2000 consolidation plan and prior to the last CBA negotiations of the employer with the union. The TPV work did not increase after execution of the 2000 strategic plan; rather, the employer's work changed so that its growth was in the service and maintenance operations and not its warehousing operations. In other words, there was a decrease in the employer's overall warehousing operation, and the decrease came totally from the employee side of its operation, not the contractual side of its operation. So although there was a loss on the employee side, there was no gain on the contrac- tual side. Therefore, its subcontracting did not violate the CBA. Furthermore, the TPVs were in place when the current CBA was negotiated. If the union had wanted to "undo" the existing subcontracts, it should have brought it up at the negotiating table. The employer contended that the laid-off workers were not qualified to do the work of the TPVs because the employer did not have the facilities to house/move the PBX systems, and the "call-in" of workers could not meet the efficiency of the 24/7/365 of the TPVs. Finally, the employer contended that the savings in changing its core work from supplying equipment to servicing and maintaining the systems proved that there was a business necessity for the changes it made, including the closing of the warehouses and its subcontracting. QUESTIONS 1. As arbitrator, what would be your award and opinion in this arbitration? 2. Identify the key, relevant section(s), phrases, or words of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and explain why they were critical in making your decision. Source: Adapted from Nexitra, 116 LA 1780