Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Business
Management
Further in 1949, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (which regulates overtime) to read, “the hours for which an employee is employed, there shall be excluded any time spent in changing clothes or washing at the beginning or the end of each workday.”This law excluded “changing clothes” from compensable time, but is also specifically allowed collective bargaining agreements to specify that such time to be paid.Analyze the case in light of these two relevant laws. What characteristics or qualities should a practitioner look for in selecting a mediator to help resolve a labor dispute? What are some potential costs or risks parties face during a work stoppage?

Further in 1949, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (which regulates overtime) to read, “the hours for which an employee is employed, there shall be excluded any time spent in changing clothes or washing at the beginning or the end of each workday.”This law excluded “changing clothes” from compensable time, but is also specifically allowed collective bargaining agreements to specify that such time to be paid.Analyze the case in light of these two relevant laws. What characteristics or qualities should a practitioner look for in selecting a mediator to help resolve a labor dispute? What are some potential costs or risks parties face during a work stoppage?

Understanding Business
Understanding Business
12th Edition
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:William Nickels
Chapter1: Taking Risks And Making Profits Within The Dynamic Business Environment
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1CE
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question

Further in 1949, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (which regulates overtime) to read, “the hours for which an employee is employed, there shall be excluded any time spent in changing clothes or washing at the beginning or the end of each workday.”This law excluded “changing clothes” from compensable time, but is also specifically allowed collective bargaining agreements to specify that such time to be paid.Analyze the case in light of these two relevant laws.

  1. What characteristics or qualities should a practitioner look for in selecting a mediator to help resolve a labor dispute?
  2. What are some potential costs or risks parties face during a work stoppage? 
4:21 PM Sun Mar 3 ||| B 436 PART 2 The Bargaining Process and Outcomes molten steel is dangerous and requires that workers wear several pieces of PPE. These include the following special flame-retardant articles: a jacket, a pair of pants, a "snood" (a hood with neck protection), "wristlets," work gloves, and leggings. Other types of PPE include the following: a hardhat, special steel-toe boots, safety glasses, earplugs, and a respirator (worn occasionally, as needed). Workers would not normally wear these types of PPE except for the hazards of the job. Indeed, these forms of PPE are expected by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Thus, donning PPE is an integral part of the day's work activities. The col- lective bargaining agreement requires that bargaining unit employees be paid for putting PPE on at the start of the workday and taking it off at the end of the workday. This equates to approximately 15 minutes total per worker per day. Further, after donning their PPE, the workers must walk (or ride a shuttle bus) approximately 10-15 minutes from the locker room to their specific work stations in the sprawling 4000- acre work site. This time, too, is an integral part of the workday and should be compensated. Position of the Company: Most of the articles mentioned in the Union's list are not PPE at all. They are “clothing." The company is not obligated to pay for people to change clothes, even if they normally do it in a locker room on the company's premises. Hard hats are “hats"; steel-toe boots are "boots." Common sense indicates that these are "clothes" and not special PPE. The only items that con- stitute PPE are safety glasses, earplugs, and the respira- tor (which is not always worn). Putting on safety glasses and earplugs takes less than 20 seconds. Thus, they fall under the "de minimus activity” exception mentioned in the contract. Also, there is no history of making such payments in the 59 years of collective ●●●● 1.0x ว a bargaining at this plant. Thus, we are not obligated to pay for changing time. Nor are we obligated to pay for the time spent walking to the appropriate work sta- tions. If we were required to do that, then the slowest, laziest workers would earn more pay by walking at a more leisurely pace, thereby undermining employee discipline and potentially the operation of the mill itself. Questions 1. Analyze how each side interprets the meaning of this contract clause. Whose position is more per- suasive? Why? 2 AA 2. In 1947, Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act (a "portal" is a doorway; 61 Stat. 84, as amended, 29 U.S. C. $251 et seq. (2006 ed. and Supp. V). §251(a). This law said that an employer is not liable to pay workers for time they spend traveling to work (e.g., an hour-long commute). It also excludes from com- pensable time, “activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to [the] principal activity or activities [th an employee is employed to perform], which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities." 61 Stat. 87, 29 U. S. C. §254(a)(2). Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202 Further, in 1949, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (which regulates overtime) to read, “[In determining] the hours for which an employee is employed, there shall be excluded any time spent in changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday.” 63 Stat. 911, 29 U. S. C. §203(o). This law excluded "changing clothes" from compensable time, but it also specifically allowed collective bar- gaining agreements to specify that such time be paid. Analyze the case in light of these two relevant laws. с x 436/774 > ●●●
Transcribed Image Text:4:21 PM Sun Mar 3 ||| B 436 PART 2 The Bargaining Process and Outcomes molten steel is dangerous and requires that workers wear several pieces of PPE. These include the following special flame-retardant articles: a jacket, a pair of pants, a "snood" (a hood with neck protection), "wristlets," work gloves, and leggings. Other types of PPE include the following: a hardhat, special steel-toe boots, safety glasses, earplugs, and a respirator (worn occasionally, as needed). Workers would not normally wear these types of PPE except for the hazards of the job. Indeed, these forms of PPE are expected by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Thus, donning PPE is an integral part of the day's work activities. The col- lective bargaining agreement requires that bargaining unit employees be paid for putting PPE on at the start of the workday and taking it off at the end of the workday. This equates to approximately 15 minutes total per worker per day. Further, after donning their PPE, the workers must walk (or ride a shuttle bus) approximately 10-15 minutes from the locker room to their specific work stations in the sprawling 4000- acre work site. This time, too, is an integral part of the workday and should be compensated. Position of the Company: Most of the articles mentioned in the Union's list are not PPE at all. They are “clothing." The company is not obligated to pay for people to change clothes, even if they normally do it in a locker room on the company's premises. Hard hats are “hats"; steel-toe boots are "boots." Common sense indicates that these are "clothes" and not special PPE. The only items that con- stitute PPE are safety glasses, earplugs, and the respira- tor (which is not always worn). Putting on safety glasses and earplugs takes less than 20 seconds. Thus, they fall under the "de minimus activity” exception mentioned in the contract. Also, there is no history of making such payments in the 59 years of collective ●●●● 1.0x ว a bargaining at this plant. Thus, we are not obligated to pay for changing time. Nor are we obligated to pay for the time spent walking to the appropriate work sta- tions. If we were required to do that, then the slowest, laziest workers would earn more pay by walking at a more leisurely pace, thereby undermining employee discipline and potentially the operation of the mill itself. Questions 1. Analyze how each side interprets the meaning of this contract clause. Whose position is more per- suasive? Why? 2 AA 2. In 1947, Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act (a "portal" is a doorway; 61 Stat. 84, as amended, 29 U.S. C. $251 et seq. (2006 ed. and Supp. V). §251(a). This law said that an employer is not liable to pay workers for time they spend traveling to work (e.g., an hour-long commute). It also excludes from com- pensable time, “activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to [the] principal activity or activities [th an employee is employed to perform], which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities." 61 Stat. 87, 29 U. S. C. §254(a)(2). Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202 Further, in 1949, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (which regulates overtime) to read, “[In determining] the hours for which an employee is employed, there shall be excluded any time spent in changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday.” 63 Stat. 911, 29 U. S. C. §203(o). This law excluded "changing clothes" from compensable time, but it also specifically allowed collective bar- gaining agreements to specify that such time be paid. Analyze the case in light of these two relevant laws. с x 436/774 > ●●●
4:21 PM Sun Mar 3 ||| = B CASE STUDY 8-4 JTI decided to pass one-half of the safety bonus payment (50 cents) on to its truck drivers and keep the remaining 50 cents to fund certain safety equip- ment purchases and the company's annual Christmas party. Bob Dale learned from talking to drivers at other firms employed by ASC that they were receiving the full $1 bonus from their employers. This upset Dale, who thought his employer (JTI) should also be giving drivers the full $1 per hour bonus payment. Dale dis- cussed his complaint with several other employees, including Sam Brady. ●●●● On December 9, employee Dale told Brady that he was on his way to see Phil Cook, ASC’s transportation manager at the plant where both Brady and Dale were assigned. Brady said he would accompany Dale to the meeting as he didn't want to miss any of the fireworks. At the meeting, Dale explained to Cook his complaint about JTI not paying its drivers the full $1 bonus amount. Cook replied that essentially this was not a decision over which he had any control, and any com- plaints should be delivered directly to JTI managers, not ASC. The meeting ended after about 15 minutes, and Dale and Brady exited Cook's office. Cook then telephoned R. C. Ridley, the JTI terminal manager who supervised Dale and Brady, and explained to him the nature of the conversation Cook had engaged in with Dale in Brady's presence. On December 19, Ridley, accompanied by a security guard, escorted Dale from the ASC property, explaining that he was being removed because "they believed that he was trying get a union started because he had talked to Cook." Ridley told Dale that ASC had barred Dale from its property. Dale responded that he was not trying to start a union and had never even spoken to anyone about doing so. Ridley stated the company would have to investigate the matter further. The Steelworkers' union had a new collective bargain- ing agreement with the steel manufacturer that said, “Employees shall be paid for donning and removing protective gear prior to beginning work and at the end of the workday, provided it constitutes more than a de minimus activity." Soon after the agreement was ratified, the union filed a grievance, charging that 1.0x ว CHAPTER 8 On that same date (December 19), Ridley, accom- panied by a security guard, also escorted Brady from the ASC property. Ridley told Brady he was being removed from the property because he had been pres- ent when Dale met with Cook about the safety bonus issue. Brady indicated that he had not known in advance the specific nature of the statements that Dale planned to make that day in Cook's office. QAA Administrative Issues 435 On December 27, Ridley informed Dale that he was being terminated in the best interest of the com- pany. Dale's written termination notice stated that he was terminated because he was "not able to function on ASC property." Ridley also informed Brady on the same date that he too was terminated because ASC did not want him back on its property. Brady's written termination notice stated the reason for termination was "not able to function on ASC property." Brady and Dale subsequently filed an unfair labor practice with the NLRB, alleging that JTI's discharge action represented unlawful discrimination against them under the LMRA, as amended. "Donning Safety Equipment?" or "Changing Clothes?" Questions 1. Was the discharge of Dale and Brady a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the LMRA? If so, what should be the appropriate remedy? 2. Was the decision by JTI to award only half of the safety bonus money available to its truck drivers a lawful employer decision? 3. If you had been advising JTI on the safety bonus issue, would you have recommended the company retain half the bonus money for the purposes described by the company (i.e., buy safety equip- ment and pay for the annual Christmas party)? Why or why not? management was not abiding by the “donning" con- tract clause. Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202 с Position of the Union: Under the new contract, management is supposed to pay workers for putting on and taking off personal pro- tective equipment (PPE). Working in a mill with x 435/774 > : ●●●
Transcribed Image Text:4:21 PM Sun Mar 3 ||| = B CASE STUDY 8-4 JTI decided to pass one-half of the safety bonus payment (50 cents) on to its truck drivers and keep the remaining 50 cents to fund certain safety equip- ment purchases and the company's annual Christmas party. Bob Dale learned from talking to drivers at other firms employed by ASC that they were receiving the full $1 bonus from their employers. This upset Dale, who thought his employer (JTI) should also be giving drivers the full $1 per hour bonus payment. Dale dis- cussed his complaint with several other employees, including Sam Brady. ●●●● On December 9, employee Dale told Brady that he was on his way to see Phil Cook, ASC’s transportation manager at the plant where both Brady and Dale were assigned. Brady said he would accompany Dale to the meeting as he didn't want to miss any of the fireworks. At the meeting, Dale explained to Cook his complaint about JTI not paying its drivers the full $1 bonus amount. Cook replied that essentially this was not a decision over which he had any control, and any com- plaints should be delivered directly to JTI managers, not ASC. The meeting ended after about 15 minutes, and Dale and Brady exited Cook's office. Cook then telephoned R. C. Ridley, the JTI terminal manager who supervised Dale and Brady, and explained to him the nature of the conversation Cook had engaged in with Dale in Brady's presence. On December 19, Ridley, accompanied by a security guard, escorted Dale from the ASC property, explaining that he was being removed because "they believed that he was trying get a union started because he had talked to Cook." Ridley told Dale that ASC had barred Dale from its property. Dale responded that he was not trying to start a union and had never even spoken to anyone about doing so. Ridley stated the company would have to investigate the matter further. The Steelworkers' union had a new collective bargain- ing agreement with the steel manufacturer that said, “Employees shall be paid for donning and removing protective gear prior to beginning work and at the end of the workday, provided it constitutes more than a de minimus activity." Soon after the agreement was ratified, the union filed a grievance, charging that 1.0x ว CHAPTER 8 On that same date (December 19), Ridley, accom- panied by a security guard, also escorted Brady from the ASC property. Ridley told Brady he was being removed from the property because he had been pres- ent when Dale met with Cook about the safety bonus issue. Brady indicated that he had not known in advance the specific nature of the statements that Dale planned to make that day in Cook's office. QAA Administrative Issues 435 On December 27, Ridley informed Dale that he was being terminated in the best interest of the com- pany. Dale's written termination notice stated that he was terminated because he was "not able to function on ASC property." Ridley also informed Brady on the same date that he too was terminated because ASC did not want him back on its property. Brady's written termination notice stated the reason for termination was "not able to function on ASC property." Brady and Dale subsequently filed an unfair labor practice with the NLRB, alleging that JTI's discharge action represented unlawful discrimination against them under the LMRA, as amended. "Donning Safety Equipment?" or "Changing Clothes?" Questions 1. Was the discharge of Dale and Brady a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the LMRA? If so, what should be the appropriate remedy? 2. Was the decision by JTI to award only half of the safety bonus money available to its truck drivers a lawful employer decision? 3. If you had been advising JTI on the safety bonus issue, would you have recommended the company retain half the bonus money for the purposes described by the company (i.e., buy safety equip- ment and pay for the annual Christmas party)? Why or why not? management was not abiding by the “donning" con- tract clause. Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202 с Position of the Union: Under the new contract, management is supposed to pay workers for putting on and taking off personal pro- tective equipment (PPE). Working in a mill with x 435/774 > : ●●●
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 4 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Similar questions
  • SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding Business
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:
9781259929434
Author:
William Nickels
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:
9780134527604
Author:
Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:
PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract…
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract…
Management
ISBN:
9781305947412
Author:
Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi…
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi…
Management
ISBN:
9780135191798
Author:
Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:
PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in…
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in…
Management
ISBN:
9780134728391
Author:
Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:
PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:
9780134237473
Author:
Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:
PEARSON
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS