Arbitration Case #3 In the Matter of Arbitration betwee.docx

Arbitration Case #3
In the Matter of Arbitration between
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (3M)
–and–
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers
International Union, Local 6 –75
The Issue
The parties stipulated the issue in this case as follows:
Has the company violated the collective bargaining agreement
by following a practice of not
using bargaining unit employees to repair personal computers?
The Facts
This grievance was brought by the Oil, Chemical & Atomic
Workers International Union, Local
6–75 on behalf of the grievant, Terry Begley, and members of
the bargaining unit. The grievant is
a systems control technician employed by the Minnesota Mining
& Manufacturing Co. (3M), and

the union is his sole representative.
The union and the company are parties to a collective
bargaining agreement. Article 2.01 in the
agreement recognizes the union as the exclusive bargaining
agent for all hourly paid employees
designated in the bargaining unit. The unit includes all
production and maintenance employees,
including service control technicians. Furthermore, Article
8.17(c) provides that “Supervisory and
other salaried employees will not perform the work of hourly
production employees except in cases
of emergency.” The union argues that the company has violated
the contract by giving to salaried
employees bargaining unit work that should have been
performed by service control technicians.
Two years ago the company purchased 4,000 desktop personal
computers. Salaried repair
technicians, who are not members of the bargaining unit, were
given the responsibility for
repairing those personal computers. The company claims that
this assignment is a logical extension
of its longstanding practice of having salaried repair technicians
repair all of the company’s office
equipment.

The union disagrees and notes that systems control technicians,
who are members of the
bargaining unit, have historically repaired and maintained
equipment associated with the operation,
maintenance, and process control of the manufacturing
processes. Because this has included
working regularly with computers, the introduction of personal
computers simply expanded the
work that should have been made available to members of the
bargaining unit. Furthermore, the
union argues that denying service control technicians this work
threatens their job security, for as
computerization becomes more prevalent, bargaining unit
members will be denied the opportunity
to keep pace with changing technology. Therefore, the union
submits that the company should be
directed to assign the work of repairing and maintaining
personal computers and ancillary
equipment to the systems control technicians.
The Union’s Argument
The evidence that members of the bargaining unit are qualified
to perform the work in question is

compelling. The union presented evidence that service control
technicians have extensive training,
both to obtain their positions and under a continuing on-the-job
training program. Part of that
continued training includes work with computers.
Personal computers are electronic devices that serve a purpose
similar to the equipment for
which service control technicians have always been responsible.
Furthermore, bargaining unit
members are qualified to service personal computers.
The union rejects the company’s argument that the contested
work is not bargaining unit work
because it involves office rather than production equipment.
The evidence shows that bargaining
unit members already work extensively in offices, where they
perform a variety of tasks in
nonproduction areas. For example, service control technicians
are responsible for lighting, for the
entire heating and cooling system, and for the physical
furniture.
The company claims that bargaining unit members cannot work
on personal computers because
they might gain access to confidential information. Service

control technicians, however, are
already entering the premises for other reasons; there is no
reason to suspect their work with
personal computers.
Finally, the union submits that service control technicians must
be given the opportunity to grow
with their craft. Assigning the repair and maintenance of
personal computers and ancillary
equipment to service control technicians would be a logical
extension of work that they are
presently performing and for which they are well qualified.
Denying them that right threatens to
render them obsolete in the future operations of 3M.
The Company’s Argument
The company submits that by this grievance the union seeks to
gain for bargaining unit members
work that is not rightfully theirs. First, the company argues that
the contract does not prohibit the
assignment of this work to non-bargaining unit members; rather,
it expressly provides this right to
the company in Article 4, the Management Rights clause. Thus,
the contract clearly supports
management’s actions in this case.

Second, the company submits that the contested work is
properly assigned to non -bargaining
unit, salaried employees. The company has never asked or
directed office equipment repair
workers to perform bargaining unit work, and service control
technicians have never been
responsible for repairing desktop personal computers. The
salaried persons who presently perform
this work are highly skilled in a number of areas for which
bargaining unit members are limited
by experience and training. They are cross-trained with respect
to both types of equipment and
product lines. Service control technicians are not expected to
have that expertise. Furthermore, the
nature of the contested work makes it ill-suited for assignment
to bargaining unit members. The
union should not be in a position to gain access to information
that relates directly to the
management of the company.
Finally, the company is puzzled that the union is alarmed at the
possibility that technology may
someday eliminate the position of service control technician,
when it is technology that created

that position in the first place. The company notes that no
service control technician has been laid
off or had hours reduced as the result of the introduction of
personal computers at 3M. In fact, the
position of service control technician is one of the more secure
jobs at the company.
Questions for Discussion
1. If you were the arbitrator, what would you decide in this
case?
2. What responsibilities should the company have to provide
career opportunities to workers like
service control technicians who are the highest paid members of
the bargaining unit?
3. If a company offers training and promotional opportunities to
jobs outside of the bargaining unit,
should workers have the opportunity to carry over their union
membership and coverage under
collective bargaining? What would our labor law say in this
case? What would good human
resource management practice suggest?

4. How should a company and a union handle cases like this? Is
arbitration the best option? If you
were the arbitrator in this case, what alternative ways might you
suggest for handling such issues
in the future?
10/14/19, 8)46 PMArbitration Case 1 (Brief): MAN6297 RXX
RXS 1198
Page 1 of
7https://fiu.instructure.com/courses/48236/quizzes/271678
Arbitration Case 1 (Brief)
Due Oct 11 at 11:59pm Points 20 Questions 4 Time Limit
None
Allowed Attempts Unlimited
Instructions
Score for this attempt: 20 out of 20
Submitted Oct 11 at 9:46pm
This attempt took 18 minutes.
Complete this quiz before attempting Arbitration Case 3 (Brief).
By completing this quiz in its entirety, you
will receive 20 points. After you have completed this quiz
review the answers. Then, complete the Case 3

Brief.
How do I view quiz results?
(https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/DOC-10685-
421298635)
Take the Survey Again
Grievance Arbitration Exercise 1
In the Matter of Arbitration between
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
Local 400,
–and–
ABC Wire Making Company
The Issue
https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/DOC-10685-421298635
https://fiu.instructure.com/courses/48236/quizzes/271678/take?u
ser_id=27509
RXS 1198
Page 2 of
At the outset of the hearing the parties stipulated the issue to be

as follows:
Was the company’s decision to hire Mitchell Carey as a primary
operator of
the dual-head extruder in violation of Article 10, Section 1(d) of
the collective
bargaining agreement? If so, what shall be the remedy?
The Facts
On September 26, 2016, the company posted job openings for
three shifts
for the position of Grade 3 Dual-Head Extruder/Primary
Operator. Two
employees bid for and were placed in these positions. The
company then
sought applicants from outside the company for the third
position and hired
Mr. Mitchell Carey. On October 28, the day after Mr. Carey
began work, the
union filed a grievance claiming the company violated Article
10, Section 1(d)
of the collective bargaining agreement by not offering the job to
Mr. Michael
Seiss, the most senior maintenance mechanic who was on layoff
status at
that time.
Article 10.1(d) reads as follows:
If the job is not filled by (a), (b), or (c) above, the Company
may select
from the callback list the employee who, in their opinion, is the
best
qualified for that job; and if, in their opinion, no one is
qualified, the
Company may hire a new employee.

The union agrees that the company properly followed the
procedures called
for in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Section 1 of Article 10.
Therefore, the
dispute focuses on the company’s application of paragraph (d).
The Union’s Arguments
Michael Seiss testified that he has worked for the company as a
maintenance mechanic for eight years. As part of this job he has
had
responsibility for maintaining, repairing, setting up, and
installing machinery
in the plant. He also testified that he has done this work on
machine #802—
the dual-head extruder. While Mr. Seiss testified that he has not
set up or run
this particular machine by himself, he said that he has set the
dies and heat
temperature controls and has observed the extruder in operation.
It is his
belief that he could run this machine. Mr. Seiss also indicated
that he was on
layoff from September 2006 to February 2007 and would have
taken the
dual-head extruder operator job if it had been offered to him.
RXS 1198
Page 3 of

The union argues that maintenance mechanics are qualified to
do the job in
question and that the company should call back any employee
who is
qualified for this job before hiring from the outside. Therefore,
the union
requests that Mr. Seiss be made whole for lost wages and
benefits from
October 27, 2016, to the time of his recall in February 2017.
The Company’s Argument
The company argues that the job of extruder operator requires a
more
complex level of skill and expertise than do other machine
operator jobs in
the plant. A letter of agreement on skill progression rates
contained in the
collective bargaining agreement is cited as evidence for the high
level of skill
required. That letter provides for a pay rate increase of 20 cents
per hour for
each year of experience in this job title.
The company’s central argument is that Article 10, Section 1(d)
indicates that
the company may, but is not required to, recall an employee
from the
callback list after it has complied with the procedures outlined
in paragraphs
(a), (b), and (c). It stresses that the word “may” in paragraph (d)
should be
taken for its plain meaning, particularly since it contrasts with
the words
“shall” in paragraphs (a) and (b) and “will” in paragraph (c).
Thus, the

company argues that it had the discretion to decide whether any
current
employees were qualified to perform the job of extruder
operator.
The company further argues that it did not act in an
unreasonable or arbitrary
fashion in deciding that Mr. Seiss’s experience as a
maintenance mechanic
did not qualify him to operate the dual-head extruder. As noted
in the letter of
agreement cited above, the dual-head extruder job is critical to
the plant’s
operations and, in the company’s opinion, requires a higher
level of skill and
expertise than the other machine jobs in the plant. Mr. John
Reilly, Director of
Human Resources, testified that he and the company’s personnel
manager
reviewed the employees on layoff status and concluded that, in
their opinion,
none was qualified for this position or could do the job without
extensive
training. The company also notes that Mr. Seiss had never run
nor been
trained on this machine. The company rejects the view that he
was qualified
to operate this machine because he had worked on it in his
capacity as a
maintenance mechanic. The company further notes that Article
9, Section 2
of the collective bargaining agreement states: “to be qualified,
an employee
must be able to perform the job without assistance. . . .”

RXS 1198
Page 4 of
Question 1
Your Answer:
What is the company’s contractual responsibility in this case?
The company's contractual responsibility is to evaluate all
eligible candidates
in house prior too outsourcing. Also, has to qualify past
employees who have
backgrounds in the job being offered. If after doing those tasks
they find that
they have not found an eligible candidate in house, they may
proceed with
outsourcing a new candidate.
The critical language is in Article 10 1(d), which reads, "the
Company
may select from the callback list the employee who, in their
opinion, is
the best qualified for that job; and if, in their opinion, no one is
qualified, the Company may hire a new employee."
Question 2
Your Answer:

Who has the burden of proof of the current employee’s (Mr.
Seiss’s) ability or
inability to perform the vacant job?
In this case the Union has the burden of proof of Mr.Seiss's
abilities and
inabilities to perform the vacant job. They have taken his
testimonials of what
his job encompassed and how he performed.
RXS 1198
Page 5 of
The language in Article 10 1(d) gives the company discretion in
deciding whether they choose to select from the callback list
and
deciding who is the best qualified for the job. Thus, the burden
falls
on the union to establish Mr. Seiss's ability to perform the job.
Question 3
Your Answer:
Assume you are the arbitrator. What would you decide?
I would decide that the company had the right to hire an outside
candidate
because for starters, Mr. Seis was on layoff. Just because his

tenure is
considered seniority, that does not mean that he can perform the
job to the
standards set. It is also stated that one should be able to perform
the job
duties and responsibilities without assistance or extensive
trainings. With that
being said, there was no reason to call back Mr. Seis to the job
is he did not
fully qualify for the job at hand.
RXS 1198
Page 6 of
An arbitrator's first responsibility is to read and interpret the
terms of a
contract and to apply the plain and ordinary meaning to its
wording.
The word "may" followed by the phrase "in their opinion"
contained in
Article 10 1(d) clearly gives the company the discretion to
decide
whether anyone on the callback list is qualified to fill a vacant
job. In
this case, the company decided maintenance mechanics were not
qualified for the dual head extruder position because of the
complex
skills and experience required for this job. Furthermore, there
is no
evidence that the company acted in an arbitrary fashion in
reaching

this judgment. The company had the right to form its opinion,
it did
so, and as provided in the contract it then had the discretion to
hire a
new employee. The quality or subsequent job performance of
the
new hire is not relevant to the issue in this case.
The company did not violate the collective bargaining
agreement
when it hired Mitchell Carey as a dual head/primary extruder
operator. The grievance is therefore denied.
Question 4
Your Answer:
Assume you were brought in as a human resource consultant to
the
company and the union following this case. What changes in
practices would
you recommend to avoid disputes like this in the future?
If I were brought in and had to make changes in the practices, I
would
recommend to not enforce the evaluation of past employees for
new
vacancies. This creates issues because there is a reason they are
no longer
with the company. I would also be more detailed in regards to
the standards
of the job requisition and be firm in regards to what kind of
experience is
informed.

RXS 1198
Page 7 of
The company has an interest in having well-trained employees
available to fill new highly skilled job openings. The company
also
would like to keep up the morale of its hourly employees and
could do
so by providing opportunities for advancement and promotion
for
these employees. The union also has an interest in the career
development of its members. The parties could develop training
programs and career development counseling for the hourly
work
force. Improved information regarding job vacancies and
upgrading
opportunities would help satisfy the hourly employees and the
union,
while also serving company interests.
Survey Score: 20 out of 20

Arbitration Case #3 In the Matter of Arbitration betwee.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Arbitration Case #3 In the Matter of Arbitration betwee.docx

Similar to Arbitration Case #3 In the Matter of Arbitration betwee.docx (18)

More from festockton

More from festockton (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Arbitration Case #3 In the Matter of Arbitration betwee.docx