What are you proposing in this case? How will it benefit the company and the workers? How is the company thinking of mitigating layoffs? Why should the no-strike clause remain in place?

Case 11 A Laid-off Glass Worker THE ISSUE Did the Company violate the Labor Agreement when Ronald Petrie was on layoff by working the remaining Glass Department employees on overtime and temporar- ily transferring other employees into the department without recalling Mr. Petrie? BACKGROUND and for the rest of April, just three people (not including Petrie) worked in the glass room. Beginning in May, the Company started having these three people work overtime, and whereas only 2 overtime hours had been worked by the entire glass room work force until then in 1997, the weekly totals thenceforth registered 10 such hours on May 2; 22 over- time hours for the week ending May 9; 26 overtime hours for the week ending May 16; 9 for the week end- ing May 23; 21.5 for that ending May 30; 30 for that ending June 6; and 16 for the June 8-June 11 period. In addition, temporary transfer hours in the room, nonexist- ent there in 1997 until May 14, then started to become frequent. They totaled 8 on May 14; 31.2 hours for the week ending May 23; 24 for that ending May 30; 56 for the one ending June 6; and 56 for the June 8-June 11 period. Following completion of his work on March 20, 1997, Glass Department employee Ronald Petrie was laid off and from then through April 3, 1997, when Jeff Smith retired, there were just four people in the glass room, as contrasted with five, counting Petrie, for the 2 weeks preceding March 20. Prior to this 2-week period, at least since the beginning of January 1997, there had been four people there, again including Petrie. Following April 3