Bargaining Case Summary

1930 Words4 Pages

Case Summary
The case is about which employees should be included and excluded from the union. The employer argues that all employees should be covered by the proposed bargaining unit, while the union seeks to exclude few employees on the ground of familial/managerial relationship along with casual workers. Following employer and unions attempted resolution the LRB decides who should be included and excluded talking into account both employer and unions points of view and precedents set in the past.

Position of the Union:
The position of the unions is that certain employees should be excluded due to their possible conflicts of interests caused by family relations, presumed supervisory roles and casual positions.
Union argues that Walker brothers …show more content…

The union requests that Athwal and Dhaliwal should be included as they are expected to be recalled to work though they presently do not work.

Position of the Employer:
The position of the Employer is that all employees should be included in the bargaining unit.
The employee argues that Walker brothers’ potential conduit of information to their father has no sufficient evidence and their do not receive special treatment due their relationship with the majority owner and it should not determine their status in the union.
As for them employees asked to be excluded from the bargaining unit per their perceived managerial duties, the employer argues that they should be included as their do not perform duties that are typical of managerial roles such as hiring and disciplining employees and their supervisory roles make them charge hands not management.
As for casual employees the employer argues that they cannot by excluded due to their nature of employment as they are not irregular or sporadic workers but employees with sufficient work histories and hours with the organization.

LRB’s Analysis and …show more content…

Both Colin Walker and Curtis walker are dependent children of the majority owner. Colin is under the majority age and therefore by definition a dependant and lives at home and Curtis too live at home and the financial assistance for his education from his father. Therefore their loyalties are more aligned with their father, therefore the employer.
Also as per the precedent set by Diversey (Canada) Limited, supra panels comments “it is only because familial relationship between employee and employer so often results in loss of community of interest with fellow workers and conflict in the bargaining unit that it serves as an important indicator to the parties that a person may not be appropriate for inclusion in a bargaining unit.”; though neither brothers have identified nay potential conflict of interest or identification with the management –their close familial relationship with the majority owner may make other employees hesitant in talking an interest in the bargaining

Open Document