Reference no: EM132212520

Question: Summarize the case study in 400 words (precisely in 400 words). Give a subject line that recommends your summary in 1-2 sentences.

Case Study: The Company is an information services company providing a wide range of services to other companies throughout the United States. One of the specific services the Company provides is a call-in employee assistance program by which employees of its clients may obtain advice and referrals related to financial and/or legal matters, substance abuse programs, and mental health assistance. The Company’s call-in center is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year exclusively by the bargaining unit employees.

The Union and Company commenced negotiations toward a first collective bargaining agreement for the employees, and one of the first topics discussed was accounting for time spent by employee-members of the Union’s negotiating team attending negotiations. The Union requested that the six employee-members of its negotiating committee be allowed to take leave without pay to attend bargaining sessions, and the Union would compensate those members directly or reimburse the Company if the Company paid the employees through the payroll system. The Company, however, insisted that absences incurred by employees while attending contract negotiations be charged against the employees’ PDO (personal day off) accounts, in full-day segments, in the same manner as any other personal leave taken. The Company’s written leave policy provides for PDO as paid time off to be used for absences such as leisure, personal business, and short-term personal or family illness. PDO is accrued based on length of company service and is operated on a “no fault” type arrangement where employees can take PDO for any or no reason. The Company also has a “Personal Leave of Absence Policy,” the stated intent of which is to recognize reasonable requests for unpaid leave providing the requests will not impact normal business operations. Otherwise, the Company does not give unpaid time off for personal reasons under any circumstances and would not treat employee negotiators any differently. The Company explained that because of scheduling concerns regarding the call-in center, it was unwilling to permit employees on the negotiating committee to simply take unpaid leave in lieu of PDO, and that the efficient operation of its call-in center depended, for the most part, on dependable staffing.

The Union continued to seek to have its employee negotiators be permitted to take leave without pay for time spent participating in negotiations. The Union also proposed meeting outside normal work times, but the Company refused to set any night or weekend bargaining times. The Union argues it is the Company’s position that it would be unreasonable to ask its managers to devote their nights and weekends to negotiations. The Union notes the Company had three valid options it could have taken consistent with applicable case law, namely: (1) it could have paid employee-negotiators to attend negotiations with no loss of PDO; (2) it could have granted unpaid leave to employee-negotiators to attend bargaining; or (3) it could have agreed to meet after hours for negotiations.

The Union charged the Company with an unfair labor practice for refusing to meet with the union representatives outside working hours and by simultaneously refusing to allow members of the bargaining committee leave without pay to participate in negotiations.

The Union argues that the Company has unlawfully interfered in the selection of Union’s bargaining representatives by only bargaining during the working day and forbidding employees from taking unpaid time to participate in negotiations. According to the Union, the Company advanced no extraordinary circumstances to support its insistence on charging employees PDO, nor for its unreasonable refusal to meet after hours for negotiations. The Union argues that the absence of the six (or less) employee-negotiators from work to attend bargaining did and will not unduly disrupt the Company’s scheduling because the employee-negotiators involved come from different work groups in a workforce of approximately 130. The Union asserts meeting on weekends could have eliminated this concern of the Company altogether. Furthermore, the Company’s reliance on its past practice with respect to its PDO policy is invalid because there has never been a union at the Company prior to this time, so there could not have been any past practice with regard to the type of leave that would be appropriate to cover employee absences for the purpose of participating in collective bargaining.

The Company contends it has consistently applied its PDO policy in a lawful manner when dealing with employee absences from work including its requirement that employee-members of the Union’s negotiating committee be charged PDO for the time they spend at negotiations. The Company points out that because employers are not required to pay employees for time spent attending negotiations, there is no meaningful distinction between that and its practice of paying its employees for time spent at negotiations but then deducting PDO for such time. The Company further notes that an employer is free to insist that negotiations take place during business or evening hours so long as it does not interfere with a union’s ability to designate its employee negotiating representatives. The Company argues it has in no way interfered with the Union’s right to designate its representatives by application of its PDO policy to the employee- members of the Union’s negotiating committee. The Company strongly asserts it has never, by any of its actions, attempted to dictate or control which employees the Union chooses to bring to the bargaining table. The Company notes it has agreed to grant negotiating representatives of employees as much leave with pay as needed to attend negotiations, but that it merely requires the leave be charged against the employee representative’s PDO account in the same manner that other employee nonbusiness time off from work is charged. In addition, the Company has placed no limitations on the ability of employee representatives to trade shifts with coworkers to attend contract negotiations.

The Company agrees that if an employer insists on bargaining during working hours it cannot simultaneously refuse employees time off to attend negotiations; however an employer is not required to grant unpaid time off to avoid violating the act. The Company has never denied any employee-member of the Union’s bargaining committee time off for negotiations.

The Company contends the Union’s allegation that it has refused to meet at times when employee-members of the Union’s bargaining committee are not scheduled to work is false as a factual matter. The bargaining committee consists of employees who work all three shifts at the Company; thus, there is no time during which all of the Union’s employee representatives are available to attend negotiations during nonworking times. And the Company argues charging PDO for negotiations is necessary to ensure staffing levels remain predictable and not create unnecessary staffing problems for the Company.