Public Sector Bargaining Unit Determination. Management Case Study

The Determination of Eligible Members of Bargaining Units
Your Name
Subject
Professor’s Name
Date of Submission
University of the Virgin Islands
School of Business Administration
MGT 410 – Labor Relations
Semester: Summer 1 2020
Date: May 19, 2020
Instructor: Dr. Barbara Flemming
Case Study 2 - Public Sector Bargaining Unit Determination
Instructions
Read the following case and respond to the questions that follow. You are required to submit a typed, double-spaced, A.P.A. format, and grammatically correct document in Times New Roman with Font size set at 12 point with margins of at least 1 inch. Utilize the case study template. Due – June 12, 2020 at 10 pm.
Facts
The union in this case was recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of a group of public employees who worked in mass transit. The city appealed this finding because the bargaining unit contained certain employees who the city claimed were supervisory and should not be included. The State Department of Labor had reviewed this contention by the city and had found that those employees were properly a part of the unit. A lower court reversed that finding and the union appealed.
Decision
The court overruled the lower court and reinstated the Department of Labor’s finding. It pointed out that the lower court had based its reversal of the Department of Labor’s decision on the fact that the department had not followed its own procedures in determining which employees were supervisory. The court stated that the lower court was wrong in requiring that those procedures be followed because, unlike the National Labor Relations Act, which excludes supervisory employees from bargaining units, the state law excludes only employees designated as deputy, administrative assistant, or secretary who have a confidential relationship to the executive head of the actual bargaining unit. Therefore, even though the Department of Labor may have applied some type of past procedure in determining the supervisory nature of the public employee, the state law merely excludes the employees in those three classifications who maintain a confidential relationship with the director.
Source: Seattle v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587, 1977–78, P.B.C. para. 36,046.
Case Summary
The issue, in this case, is the alleged inclusion of supervisory employees within the bargaining units of the public sector. This has been raised at the Department of Labor of the State by the city. However, this was overruled by the court, which follows the data provided by the Department of Labor, stating that the employees that are part of the bargaining unit are considered to be appropriately part of that particular unit. This, however, was appealed by the union.
1 Problem Identification
1 Minor Problem
The minor problem would most likely be the misidentification of proper participants of the union.
2 Future Problems
Other organizations may also misinterpret the law, which can cause future conflicts.
3 Major Problem
The major problem is the alleged inclusion of non-eligible employees in the bargaining unit.
2 Problem Analysis
4 Apparent causes and your justification
The apparent cause in the identified problems is the misinterpretation of the law, which is the National Labor Relations Act because the opposing party may not have read the statutory law literally.
5 Underlying issues
The issue lies in the alleged inclusion of non-eligible employees as part of the bargaining unit in mass transit.
6 Assumptions made
It was assumed that supervisory employees are included in the bargaining unit.
3 Alternative Solutions
7 Options available
Review the National Labor Relations Act
8 Advantages and disadvantages of each unit
Advantages: There will be a more transparent view as to how the law should be interpreted, and this will lead to less conflict among opposing parties.
Disadvantages: Some people may still find the law in a...