You are the Arbitrator – Refusing to Arbitrate
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
You are the Arbitrator – Refusing to Arbitrate The employer and employee union are participatory in a binding collective bargaining agreement that stipulates the conditions for arbitration. The crux of the problem is the union’s filing of four grievances that it feels ought to be arbitrated. The employer feels otherwise, and refuses to bring the cases before an arbitrator. Therefore, the scenario resulting from the impasse is a lack of arbitration because of disagreement between the concerned parties. The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) lays down the conditions that warrant pursuance of arbitration and those that should be addressed in court. If I were the arbitrator, I would award the employer the opportunity of not having to indulge an arbitrator. This decision stems from the fact that the arbitration clause is narrow-minded such that it excludes important clauses that cover what needs to be arbitrated. The collective bargaining agreement includes issues such as employee safety, disputes that relate to working conditions, and other matters that are not included in the main contentious clauses. Disagreements over contract interpretation, the number of hours that the business should be open, and matters relating to operational or business judgment are not to be arbitrated. The four cases presented by the employees union for arbitration lack direct or partial connection to the matters that can stand arbitration. None of the issues has anything to do with safety issues, working conditions, or other related problems. They have much to do with contractual interpretation, the hours worked by employees, and the decisions made by the business management. This makes the CBA thin skinned in the face of emergent employee concerns. Therefore, there is lack of thoroughness in the provisions of the CBA when addressing employee problems. It can be deduced that the staff and lawmakers behind drafting the agreement left out important details. Matters relating to contractual meaning and understanding abound as the main challenges facing the employer and employees. Underperforming employees have to be corrected and given appropriate warning. Therefore, how this is addressed is beyond the coverage of the collective bargaining agreement. In addition, hiring practices are outside the purview of the document. Wrongfully hired employees who are paid undue money from the piece rate pool are not subject to arbitration. Employees breaking company rules and policies are not covered by the bargaining agreement. The employer is correct in maintaining that neither of the parties have an obligation to submit to an arbitration in matters that are not covered by the CBA. Evidently, none of the four issues raised by the union qualifies for arbitration. The employer and the union can avoid the conflict by outlining the expectations of the coverage of the CBA to eliminate ambiguity. By not properly fleshing out the agreement contract has developed unwanted repercussions. There are potential gray areas that need to be further refined to place them where they belong and eliminate equivocation. The employer is comfortable in the knowledge that the collective bargaining agreement does not clearly spell out the areas under its jurisdiction. On the other hand, the union complains that the employer is deliberately modifying the scope of the CBA and repudiating the agreement contract. The sketchiness of the agreement is brought to light. The union should have carefully studied the agreement, and where possible involved professional contract specialists to ensure their fears were well addressed. The lack of refinement of the issues that the contract should tackle is the critical flaw in the CBA.