Reference no: EM133236084
Labour Relations Specialist Desiree Phillips had been keeping her ear cocked for information last month or two. Her employer, Capital Equipment and their union were due to begin bargaining for a new collective agreement in two months' time. She wanted to learn what the issues might be when the time came. In her previous jobs, bargaining had been preceded by an increase of certain issues arising and then showing up at the bargaining table.
Most of the 250 employees were in the union, with which they had a reasonably good working relationship, for a number of reasons. The union-management relationship long-term, extending back 25 years. Individuals on both sides took a practical, problem solving approach. Also, the firm was still small enough that issues, when they arose, became apparent.
Still, differences had arisen from time to time. A strike had been narrowly avoided 15 years ago over wage and safety issues. Where conflicts occurred, they were generally due to unnecessarily unyielding opinions on either side. A previous union leader had a tendency to take a hard line on some issues. In other cases, a strong supervisor had caused problems by not following the collective agreement properly. In her opinion, most conflicts were a result of mistakes on one or both sides.
She knew that wages would be an issue but was curious as to what other items would arise. She wanted to prepare properly and develop positions on the issues, plus research what potential impacts certain demands may have on the company. They had rebounded from a number of challenging years, but as an exporter to the US, the uncertainty of markets there raised business concerns for the Company. They would likely have to take a hard line on wages this time, so may have to be flexible in other areas.
She knew, that there would likely be a push for more paid time off, whether by adding another holiday or 1-2 "personal days" which had become quite popular in the past few years. The firm did not observe Boxing Day but employees could bank overtime for that, which seemed to work. They did not observe the August long weekend either, but it was in the middle of their annual shut down for equipment recalibration, so was less of an issue.
Personal days, however, was a likely issue. It was high-profile innovation and attractive for a number of reasons. In other firms, employees could use those days for any purpose they wished, such as sick leave, a day off, added to vacation, or even to use on Boxing Day or the August long weekend.
She decided to include calculation of 1-2 personal days per year, per employee in the many other scenarios to cost out in advance. This would help prepare for that demand if it was made and be available should she need it. Actually, if they agreed to that demand, it could reduce pressure for pay for the other two holidays, plus give employees a popular, high profile benefit.
Also, the firm currently offered three paid "sick days" per year and there was a 10-day waiting period for the short-term disability plan to kick in. Some employees missed almost no time. The average was about 5 days for incidental absences. The option to use 1-2 personal days for this purpose could be popular with employees. The benefit could serve a number of purposes.
The second aspect she wanted to consider was safety. The firm's safety record could be better, and they had tried many things to improve it. Training was expensive, and her budget was limited. The recent mandatory safety orientation legislation had added to this cost. She also knew that stress was an increasingly serious problem in virtually all workplaces. Studies were now suggesting that many accidents and illnesses were a result of stress. The costs to business were huge, in actual dollars, and impacts on people. In addition, it had been a topic of discussion locally in another firm's bargaining.
She knew safety was a key union concern yet could not add dollars to the table for more training. She did feel that, if they could lower the cost of accidents and incidental time loss, even a bit, it would be significant. They could save actual dollars in time loss, and, hopefully, lower their WCB cost rating, which was based on their record within the industry.
One idea that arose was to actively promote employee wellness in collaboration with the union and their EAP provider and offer up to a $100 subsidy for membership in a fitness facility. The wellness initiative had been offered by the benefits provider as a way to reduce claims (the EAP service was from the same benefits company and already included services such as weight loss and smoking cessation). The fitness subsidy was another popular, high profile benefit, and research showed fit employees missed less time. Another advantage was partnering with the union which would help.
Questions
Address the following three questions. Base your answers on course material AND on your personal experiences and sensibilities about workplaces:
- Do you feel Desiree's identification of potential key issues is logical? Why or why not? Research and report on 2-3 types of issues unions are reportedly raising in bargaining these days.
- For collective bargaining purposes, how would you calculate the cost of your firm offering 1 additional paid "personal day" per employee to your workplace?
- What controls would you put in place to ensure a fitness subsidy was used for actual fitness purposes?