Negotiations Assignment FINAL

.pdf

School

Mohawk College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

M845

Subject

Economics

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by DrUniverse12752 on coursehero.com

Negotiation Assignment: Wilson Brothers vs. UFCW Jennifer Lyons, Industrial Relations HRM845 November 19, 2023 Question 1 Jim will need to calculate the impact of the 20% wage increase proposed by the union. In order to do this he will have to make the following calculations:- a-show the impact on AHWR b-show the impact on WIB c-show the impact on NWIB d-calculate the new TCR for Wilson Bros in the first year of the new agreement if the company actually agreed to a 20% wage proposal as presented by the union.

Impact on AHWR ( Average Hourly Wage Rate) Current AHWR = $30.00 + 20% increase as per UFCW proposal AHWR = $30.00 x 1.20 = $36.00 Impact on WIB (Wage Impacted Benefits) : WIB = 15% of current AHWR ($30.00) WIB = $30.00 x 0.15 = $5.40 Impact on NWIB (Non-Wage Impacted Benefits) : NWIB = 10% of current AHWR ($30.00-no increase) NWIB = $30.00 x 0.1 = $3.00 AHWR : $36.00 WIB: $5.40 NWIB: $3.00 THE PROPOSED TCR WOULD BE: $44.40 Question 2 2) Jim will need to calculate the impact of the safety boot and pension proposal on the non-wage impacted benefit calculation in the first year of the new agreement. He will assume each employee works a 40-hour week, 52 weeks per year. Calculate the new non-wage impacted benefit (NWIB that would result from accepting the union’s proposals)? There are 800 unionized employees at Wilson Bros who work 40 hours per week for 52 weeks in a year result in 2080 working hours per year. The union proposes the following: Safety Boots Requirement proposal: The Company pays $50 per year per employee Company Contribution for pension plan proposal: $500,000 in the first year

If Jim accepts these proposals, these are the impacts: $500,050 (per year per employee) 1,664,000 (total hours for 800 employees working 2080 hours per year) = $0.30 The total of Non-Wage impacted benefits will equal $0.30. The pension and safety boots and proposal will affect the Wilson Bros company by increasing the NWIB by $0.30 changing the TCR to $44.70 (44.40 + $0.30) Question 3 Jim doesn’t think he can agree to the union’s language on contracting out because as written it could severely limit the company’s flexibility. What language, if any, should Jim propose to attempt to resolve this issue? The initial proposal, by the union states that the company cannot outsource any work currently done by members of the bargaining unit without obtaining written consent from the union. Additionally, it emphasizes that there should be no employee layoffs resulting from outsourcing. Flexibility Concerns for the Company: There are concerns about how this clause may limit the company’s flexibility for companies like Wilson Brothers that require turnaround times and thrive on innovation. It is important to have the ability to outsource tasks without facing restrictive constraints. Proposed Modifications: Clause 3.0; This suggests that while the company will ensure job security for employees, there can be exceptions if some union members lack skills or if specific tasks require equipment not available within the company. Clause 3.1; This offers a solution, for temporarily reassigning employees affected by outsourcing with a notice period of 60 days to facilitate smooth transitions. Additional Proposals: It is recommended to specify that alternative employment opportunities should be provided to affected employees with at least 90 days’ notice before any work is contracted out which might result in staff layoffs. The company should also try to reassign employees within two weeks of giving notice of outsourcing the work if they have the necessary resources and capable employees to perform the task.

Jim should suggest language that allows flexibility, for the company while ensuring job security for employees. This includes: · Avoid layoffs caused by outsourcing. · Requiring union approval before regularly outsourcing work performed by bargaining unit members. · Offering alternative job assignments or transfers within the company to affected employees. Communicating these policies and intentions to the union and the company fosters understanding and acting in faith. The proposed language should balance protecting employee interests and providing flexibility for the company. It is crucial to define situations where outsourcing does not lead to layoffs of bargaining unit employees and specify exceptions when outsourcing is permissible due, to lack of skills or equipment. Additionally, the company must commit to offering alternative employment opportunities and providing notice to both the union and affected employees. Question 4 Jim doesn’t think he can agree to the union’s language on technological change because as written it could severely limit the company’s flexibility. What language, if any, should Jim propose to attempt to resolve this issue? The union has proposed a 12-month written notice requirement, for any changes ensuring that no employees within the bargaining unit will be laid off due to these changes. Notice proposals of technological change is commonly seen in workforces such as these. For instance, in the 2016 agreement of United Steelworkers Local 1944 the following agreement was reached (please note this is a federally regulated union/company) "In ARTICLE B10. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE it is understood that technological change will be defined according to section 51(1) of Division IV Part 1 of the Canada Labour Code. The parties involved in this agreement have mutually agreed that sections 52, 54 and 55 of Division IV Part 1 of the Canada Labour Code do not apply. Both the company and the union are committed to discussing measures that can support employees affected by change in adapting to its effects. If a regular employee with one year or more of service is terminated due, to the introduction of

change they will be entitled to severance pay based on completed years of service as outlined in the provided table (refer to reference link for details)."In response, to the proposal the employer has raised concerns about the 12 month notice period viewing it as restrictive and potentially harmful to the companys competitiveness. They propose revising it to a 120 day notice period. Additionally they emphasize the importance of engaging in discussions with the union after giving notice regarding training and adapting to changes. The employer is committed to providing training for employees who may be affected by these changes.” Technological advancements are crucial for the success of the company and in turn the success of the employees; however, these changes could result in redundancies and automation, ultimately leading to job replacements or eliminations. In order to ensure company profitability. Jim should suggest an amendment to the duration of the 12-month notice period. This is the language Jim should propose: · Implementing a notice period (120 days) before introducing changes. · Providing information in the notice regarding implementation dates relevant departments involved, nature of change and its impact on employees. · Ensuring appropriate training opportunities for employees who require skills due to changes. · Recognizing the benefits of progress while also acknowledging the importance of minimizing any impact on employees. · Ensuring that provisions for layoffs are subject to at least 90 days’ notice to the employees affected, due to the changes. Question 5: How should Jim respond to Union Proposals #7, #8, #9 and #10 #7: The company will provide the union with bulletin boards on company premises to use for union business. The company has agreed to install notice boards at locations, within its premises to display union-related information. These boards will be strategically placed in areas for all union

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version