As the arbitrator, how do you settle this grievance? What factors from the case come into play in making your decision?

When analyzing this particular case, I gathered information from both sides and added my own information to conclude my decision favors towards company. I came to this conclusion based on a few critical pieces of information presented from each side. Not all union employees are eligible for the new dental plan because they needed to have three months of active employment and be on medical leave (Witney and Sloane 413). Although some union members in the past have been able to take advantage of the plans, this was provided by practice and not by contract, according to the company (Witney and Sloane 413). The example given by the union was put into consideration, however, although the company has granted the access for benefits in the past, it did not have to at the time, nor does it have to grant it in this case. Just because a Union member paid into the plan does not make them automatically eligible for said plan. In comparison, people pay into the United States Social Security, but not all are eligible to receive the benefits. I would agree with the company that the so called, “new dental plan” (413) is really just an “improvement” (413), of the old plan. Employees who have paid into the plan are still eligible, however, the must meet the minimum requirements to receive benefits. In addition, employees on medical leave, should have at least 1 working day on or after January 1, 2001, in order to also qualify for the so called “improved” part of the benefit.

Work Cited:

Witney , Arthur A and Sloane Fred. Labor Relations. 13. VitalSource Bookshelf. Pearson Learning Solutions, Monday, March 20, 2012.