Paper on Separation of Employees and Supervisory Issues in Seattle v. Amalgamated Transit Union (1977)

1.1. Introduction

Basing on the case study in the case of Seattle v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 in 1977, minor problems include the difference of opinion between the lower court and the union. Also, the separation of employees due to being supervisory deeming them unfit to be part of the case is another problem (Gallagher, 1986). The differentiation of supervisory employees due to the bargaining unit and the laws encompassed is a challenge.

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

Save 25%

1.2. Possible Future Problems

A shift in the state law allowing more employees and not only those with positions including deputy, administrative assistant, or secretary with a confidential relationship to the executive head of the actual bargaining unit is one possible future issue (Gallagher, 1986). Eradicating the state laws may draft the need to look at similar cases again since the ways of finding the solutions are likely to be different and can affect many individuals.

1.3. Major Problem(s)

The lower court reversing the finding due to views of including employees with specific elements in accompaniment is a major problem (Gallagher, 1986). The appeal of the union against the lower court plus the application of inadequate information about the context of the rulings by the lower court is the major problem.

2. Problem Analysis

2.1. Apparent Causes and Justification

The causes of the problems revolve around having insufficient information about a case. Due to having inadequate knowledge, the lower court claimed that the Department of Labor needs to reverse their decision since there was the inclusion of employees without identifying who was supervisory (Carrell & Heavrin, 1988). However, the personnel from the lower court needs to understand that the state law excludes employees who are the deputy, administrative assistant, or secretary with a confidential relationship to the executive head of the actual bargaining unit and not any other individual.

2.2. Underlying Issues

The primary issues involve the employees being allowed by the state court and the lower court to be part of the bargaining unit (Carrell & Heavrin, 1988). Also, the supervisory or parts of the three departments, the deputy, the administrative assistant, or the secretary helping or disadvantaging employees, is another issue.

2.3. Assumptions Made

It is fit to assume that when dealing with a bargaining unit case, the employees included in the case can help solve it or make things worse depending on the approach implemented (Carrell, & Heavrin, 1988). The lower court approach and the state court approaches are different due to the context of employees. Both courts, however, have a similar end goal of serving justice.

3. Alternative Solutions

3.1. Options available

There are various alternative solutions applicable to the case study (Carrell & Heavrin, 1988). Primarily, observing the union’s impact on the public if the case succeeded and the disregard of the employees is a vital unit in the case.

3.2. Advantages and Disadvantages of each Alternative

Advantages

• Impact of the union to the public
• The solution in the ruling centers on helping the general public (Carrell, & Heavrin, 1988).
• It is easy to identify things that might root future issues when dealing with public needs.
• Disregard of the employees as a vital unit in the case
• The implementation of change increases massively (Carrell & Heavrin, 1988).

Disadvantages

In both cases, taking a leap to help the union might involve breaking instead of upholding the law (Carrell, & Heavrin, 1988). Besides, by helping the public, the employees might be at a disadvantage.

4. Recommendation

4.1. Recommended Action

Understanding the case is the most significant first step. After understanding the case, apply it using different measures to ensure that the law is upheld (Gallagher, 1986). The employees help solve the case while following the rules, and both the solution plus methods have positive impacts on the general public.

4.2. Justification

One cannot apply the most suitable approach to a case without understanding the case (Gallagher, 1986). Also, due to leading by example, ensuring every method is by the law will help find long lasting solutions.

4.3. Positive and Negative Effects

The application of the correct recommended actions ensures the eradication of adverse effects and nurturing positive effects (Gallagher, 1986). The court ruling in favor of the union, the inclusion of the employees’ views, and publicly gaining from the case are the positive effects.

5. Implementation

5.1. Step by Step Procedure to Implement the Recommended Action

First, identify the case in question. Understand the case and assign it to a suitable lawyer. Afterward, have the team of professionals on the case research on the best approaches within the law. Compare all the identified approaches to choose the best approach that favors the employees and the public but is still applicable within the law (Lewin et al., 1988). The above steps must be carried out before the day filed for the case of approximately ten days. 100$ is also paid upon appearance to the court, together with the agreement with the client. Use the gained knowledge and approach in providing the case to the court. Lastly, in case of an appeal, payment of 500$ is crucial before the judge hears and rules in the case.

6. General Comments

6.1. Other Relevant Comments

It is vital to have a plan set when dealing with a case so that one can manage the financial obligations (Lewin et al., 1988). Despite having help from the lawyers, understanding the case and conversing about it with one’s lawyer helps identify the steps that need taking.

6.2. Conclusion

A case dealing with employees working at mass transit has the employees as clients who need the city to fight for their case. The application of the correct measures within the law was the best way to help these employees. Despite the argument by the lower court, the approach of the case was correct. It was possible to identify the employees under the supervision and those excluded from the supervisory bargaining units.

7. In this instance, state law did not mirror the National Labor Relations Act as to those employees excluded from coverage. The court felt this was done intentionally to allow supervisory employees in the public service to bargain collectively with the public employer. Why would a state legislature take such a position?

The state legislature took such a position to support their ability to hold dual employment. Dual employment allows them to have a fixed earning and they can negotiate payment if they another job. By bargaining with the public employer, employees can sign contracts that cater to their requirements depending on the job and the agreement with the organization (Gallagher, 1986). Besides, bargaining with one’s public employer and reach an agreement of a particular amount helps the employee be more comfortable working with a feeling of respect and being appreciated by their employer. The position improves the quality employees provide due to feeling in charge of receiving pay equivalent to their efforts at work.

8. A literal interpretation of this statute would allow a confidential employee whose job title did not fall into one of those three categories, that is, deputy, administrative assistant, or secretary, to be part of a bargaining unit which is bargaining collectively with an immediate supervisor. Should the statute be read so literally?

Yes, the statute should be read literally. When comparing a confidential employee whose job does not fall among a deputy, an administrative assistant, or a secretary to one that falls in the category, the two units are different (Carrell & Heavrin, 1988). There are many advantages that individuals in the three categories have in terms of benefits. As such, bargaining collectively with a supervisor helps many people agree on their wants and what they would like to improve. Satisfying the needs of these individuals increase productivity and profitability in many sectors. Bargaining for individuals falling in the three categories has a massive loss.

References

Carrell, M. R., & Heavrin, C. (1988). Collective bargaining and labor relations: Cases, practice, and law. Merrill Publishing Company.

Gallagher, M. G. (1986). Parity Bargaining in the Public Sector—a Mandatory, Permissive, or Illegal Subject?. University of Baltimore Law Review, 15(3), 2.

Lewin, D., Kochan, T. A., & Feuille, P. (1988). Public-sector labor relations: analysis and readings. Lexington Books.