Paper Example on Company Must Prove Failure to Pay Employees on Washington Bday

Introduction

According to this case, the company carries the full burden of proof; this is owing to the fact that the Union failed to reward the employees for the leave on the birthday of Washington in accordance with the stipulated agreement (Ferriell, 2009). The company, therefore, has to make a vivid statement to the Union concerning the reasons for failing to pay the employees during the Washington birthday. Furthermore, the company has to offer crystal clear statements concerning the agreement since it was ambiguous to remove or add Washington’s Birthday in the list of the paid holidays.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Explain the Union's argument that, since George Washington's birthday holiday had occurred before the agreement was ratified, employees were entitled to holiday pay

There was an argument by the Union that the agreement had been prolonged, and in accordance with the previous agreements, Washington's Birthday used to be a paid holiday. The endorsement of the payment decision by the Union was delayed, and a day had passed before the ratification by the Union was undertaken. Furthermore, the Union had never come to a conclusion concerning the decision of paid holidays. The Union argued that no modification had been made on the agreement until the end of the ratification; this, therefore, conveyed that the company had no other option but to pay its employees for the Washington Birthday (Ferriell, 2009).

Explain the company’s argument that the parties agreed to make the effective date retroactive

As per the company’s argument, there was an agreement between parties to make the effective date retroactive. In accordance with the company, the Union was responsible for the validation, and even prior to the actual date of Washington's Birthday, a notice had been displayed by the company concerning the swapping of the holiday. The company maintained that the parties decided to retroactively apply the conditions and terms of the agreements concerning the benefits and wages dated 30th October 2005. It is during this period that the companies came to an agreement of extending the expiring CBA until the negation of the new agreement. However, it is worth noting that the practice is not unusual, most specifically in a relationship that is more long-standing. Making the effective date retrogressive would have an effect of benefiting both parties by ensuring stabilization of the scene of labor relations enabling for less difficult conclusions towards negotiations (Hurmerinta-Haanpää & Viding, 2018). It is always a common practice in such extensions to offer some form of retroactivity, more specifically to wages as well as benefits. The practice plays a significant role in stabilizing conditions and, therefore, helps in avoiding the employer's temptation of dragging things out for fiscal gains.

Should the holiday pay be included in the category of wages and benefits? Why or why not?

The category of benefits, as well as wages, should be included in the holiday pay (Ferriell, 2009); this is owing to the fact that the new terms of agreements and extension suggested that there is a need of including the wages and the benefits to the holiday pay as the changes were effected from 30th October 2005. Furthermore, it was stated by the Union that the contingent agreements showed that the benefits, as well as the wages that were agreed upon subsequent to the end of the previous agreements, would be retroactively applied to the date of expiration of the prior agreement.

Moreover, the Contingent Agreement on Contract Extension that was signed on 25th October 2005 clearly outlined the retroactivity of any forms of benefit as well as wages back to the end of the prior expiration of the CBA. The contingent agreement made sure that both parties that the benefits and wages changes were negotiated in any interim extensions would become effective as from 30th October 2005, except if there was not CBS reached or one of the parties ended the extension of the contract with written notice of seven days (Ferriell, 2009). It is, however, worth noting that there was no occurrence of such nullification and, therefore, the ratified CBA was retroactively made as was agreed.

Be the arbitrator. Should you rule for the Union or the company? Give your reasons

By acting as an arbitrator concerning the case, I would rule for the company. I would make sure that the changes that were modified as well as the agreement that was made between the two parties, are effected (Hurmerinta-Haanpää & Viding, 2018). I would make sure that the holiday pay is catered for in George Washington’s Birthday; this is because the active dates of the agreement had been declared, and the company had directed the swapping of the paid holidays and Union failed to provide a response for it. There was a clear outline concerning the holiday payments. Moreover, the company maintained that the parties decided to retroactively apply the conditions and terms of the agreements concerning the benefits and wages dated 30th October 2005; this is what makes me rule in favor of the company.

References

Ferriell, J. (2009). Understanding contracts (1st ed., pp. 3-22). LexisNexis. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Contracts-Jeffrey-T-Ferriell/dp/1422429628

Hurmerinta-Haanpää, A., & Viding, S. (2018). The functions of contracts in inter-organizational relationships: A contract experts’ perspective. Journal of Strategic Contracting And Negotiation, 4(1-2), 98-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055563619884791