Issue Did the Company Violate the Collective Bargaining Agre

Issue: Did the Company Violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement When It Reduced the Hours of Full-Time Employees to Less than 35 Hours per Week as This Action Relates to the NLRB Charge? Bargaining Agreement for the period October 12, The Grievance in this matter was Company is con- Mr. Bob Pain, President, GEU, wrote the following The Company informed the Union that on Septenm Background 2012 to September 30, 2016. Roe Services, Inc. is a federal government contractor for food services. The Government Employees Union GEU) represents the food service and custodial or verting all fulltime employees to part time. maintenance employees. GEU has represented the food service employees over at the course of more letter to Mr. Joe Roe, President, Roe Services, Inc. than 25 years through a series of federal contractors. The GEU and Roe Services signed a Collective ber 1, 2015 it will put up a new schedule that

Solution

1

The unjustifiable work hone charge being conceded to authority implies that there would be a group of master board which would endeavour to alleviate between the organization and association for an expense, which would be an out of court settlement however by lawful means (follows legitimate way with no punishment or Punishments) and is considered as an attractive technique for settlement of any sort of grievances, issues and so forth. The Arbitrator is the seat of the board and goes about as the judge of the hearing, on account of intervention, it isn\'t lawfully official, it is all the more a proposal or an approach to settle the question and the choice of referee isn\'t last and authoritative

2

According to the present standards of the Affordable human services act, if the organization has over half full-time representatives it is mandatory for it to give and enlist to moderate social insurance, yet as the organization has changed over a large number of its full-time worker in to low maintenance, they won\'t not be under impulse to select under the demonstration.

3

The organization is stating despite the fact that it has modified the structure of the organization it has done it under whatever is allowable under the administration rights and has not done any off-base. Despite the fact that association says its abused CBA, yet the organization say that it has not damaged CBA and under segment 6 of CBA it is said about the organization can change the current employments, make new occupations and so forth.

4

The association says that the organization has abused the CBA and it can\'t change the business status of the representatives. They say that the CBA area 6 has given the choice of making new occupations and evolving it, yet it ought to be done after there is a talk between the two gatherings. Clearly the representatives would lose alternate advantages like social insurance benefits tip and so forth, which would be somewhat putting something aside for the company. Plus status would likewise not be considered, which a discouraging issue is.

5

I was a referee, I would have analysed the CBA, right now, according to the CBA segment 6 between the association and the organization is empowering the organization to change and alter the occupations and there is no specify of discourse is to be made with the association in regards to same. Also the organization is simply practicing the Management rights, subsequently I would give my choice from the organization\'s side and would ask association to corporate with them