Ambiguous language Essay

Ambiguous talking to is often a cause for occupy when employment pin d stimulates are involved, and this is comportly the situation turn outlined in causal agent Study 9-1 Contract Interpretation. 1. The most important microscope stage were I arbitrator, would be the intent of the Company regarding the involved render. The company stated that the double-time provision was added to the contract as a means of combating thoughtlesseeism during the week (Carrell, M. , & Heavrin, C. J. D. , 2006, p. 445).Based on this line, it is clear that the purpose of the provision foc employ on an employees universe by noncurrent for the day, non late for the shift. (One must concede that the terms tardy and absent certainly have different meanings, and by the Companys own admission, the involved provision focused on absenteeism. ) Although failing to arrive on time is a form of absenteeism, it is a temporary, short-lived event, and in this case, was lowstandably unintentional and out of the employees control.Under the outlined circumstances, the grievants creation 10 minutes late simply does not equate to his being absent. 2. Regardless of the arbitrators decision, no effect would be accustomed to the bargain. The Case Study states, there had been previous grievances on the same issue, scarcely those arbitration awards were inconsistent (p. 445). Therefore, a case-by-case analysis seems to be the rule. I do believe that denying the over-time would be dangerous to the long-term relations amidst the Company and the Union as it is obvious that the two sides clearly discord on the meaning of this particular issue.Given the Unions (i. e. the employees) mystify is that reasonable tardiness would be overlooked, a denial could result in walk-outs and/or strikes (p. 445). 3. Although the contract language is clear, an arbitrator should be involved because neither caller gives about the interpretation, the intent, or the common practice applied to the involved pro vision of the corporal dicker agreement. The Case Study states that a meeting of the minds was out of the question as the Union and the Company disagreed aboutwhat was contained in the collective bargaining agreement (p. 445). The difficulty seems to stem, in part, from the parties having a different intellect during the negotiation process from the companys current interpretation of the double-time contribution of the contract (p. 445). The Union stated, the companys negotiator had agreed not to count reasonable tardiness against the double-time provision but had refused to change the language used in the contract however, the companys negotiator . . . stated that the rattling purpose of the double-time section was to allow for double-time pay only if there was no absenteeism in the previous week (p. 445). The negotiator did recall a record regarding reasonable application, but stated that it was in response to a tutelage worker on the negotiating committee and the negotiator recalled in that situation, he would agree to apply a reasonable standard to maintenance workers for Sunday double-time pursuance a tardiness on Saturday due to the difference in weekend programing for the 25 maintenance workers (p.445). Neither version rings completely truthful it seems unlikely that the Union would allow the Company to concede a point and then agree that no change be made to the languagea union simply has no reason to settle for a verbal agreement when a contract negotiation is underway. On the new(prenominal) hand, the negotiator recalls something along the lines of what the Union recalled being said, but the negotiator applies that statement to a special situation involving only the maintenance workers.Looking only when at this case, it is obvious that the employee neither intended nor could control the event that caused his tardiness. It exponent further be argued that arriving only 10 minutes late under the circumstances (i. e. being a passenger in a fo mite that sustained a flat tire), indicates a likelihood that had the flat not occurred, the grievant actually would have arrived to work early. Looking at this employees past record of tardiness (or lack thereof) might reveal the truth of his intentions that day.Given the facts presented and the difficulties raised, it is patent that the contract language is ambiguous, and to avoid further/future confusion, frustration, and arbitration, an amendment and/or glade to the contract language should be added during the next bargaining session, if not sooner. recognitionCarrell, M. , & Heavrin, C. J. D. (2006). Case Study 9-1 Contract Interpretation. Labor relations an collective bargaining Cases, practice, and law (8th ed. ). Upper Saddle River Prentice Hall. 445.