Did the Company Violate the Agreement
The Company has the burden of proof using evidence of the new and Old CBA, ratified Interim CBA extension and testimonies from the HR manager as levels of proof. The grievances by the Company are justified since the union contradicts their position as that compromised by the language of the agreement, yet employees were receptive to the remittances given during the Memorial Day of 2006.
The argument that George Washington’s Birthday occurred before the new agreement was ratified is ideally correct. However, the entitlement for holiday pay does not heed to the agreement ratified on the use of interim contract extension.
According to the contingent agreement, all parties agreed to apply the new benefit change pertaining the holiday while still using the old contract. These beneficial changes began immediately and since the holiday change informed a wage change, no pay was to paid. The company’s argument that all parties decided to make the effective date retroactive is synchronal to the succeeding events of only receiving pay during Memorial Day. The retroactive date, October, 25, 2005 was retroactive in that its events affected the operations of the company tentatively before the ratification of the new CBA.
The only event, according to the company viable to retroactive address was the wage and benefit issue, which all parties agreed.Holiday pay should not be included in the ‘Wage and Benefits’ category. Private and public holidays are subjective, and are prone to change depending on their derivative societal perspective. They might change or be informed by other externalities. As a HR tactic, paid non-work holidays are often to increase satisfaction and offering paid-worked holidays increases productivity for the over-time hours. The company exercises the full power to determine if a day is a holiday or workday for its employees, thus should not be included in labor policies, rather should be incorporated in the terms and conditions of a company.DiscussionEvery managerial and administrative sector necessitates supervisors who supervise employees’ objectivity to their allocated responsibilities. A major issue that defines their roles in organization is assessing behavioral issues among employees, ensuring discipline and taking disciplinary action where necessary. Taking supervisors through disciplinary training sessions requires the insistence on three main principles for effective behavioral assessment:
Just Cause Principle- Training supervisors on how to identify sources of dissatisfaction as per the seven components of just cause before taking any disciplinary action.
They include adequate warning, reasonable rules, violation of rule, fair investigation, substantial proof, equitable treatment, and appropriate discipline.Time Frame principle- This equips supervisors with the ability to determine the timeliness of issuing a disciplinary action; time taken to effect the disciplinary action and time given to rectify the behavior. Time frame enables the supervisor to calculate the impact of the misbehavior to the company and determine the most appropriate disciplinary measures ought not to bring devastating impacts to an organization.
Double Jeopardy principle- This principle trains supervisors …