Research Paper on Surface Bargaining: A Dishonest Collective Bargaining Approach

Introduction

Surface bargaining is an approach utilized in collective bargaining where one of the parties in the case has no intention of going through the case motions until the end, "only makes a halfhearted effort" (agreement) (Compa, 2014). On this account, the bargaining process is lacking honesty. The strategies of surface bargaining may include making proposals that are unacknowledgeable for the other party, taking absurd r unyielding stands about issues, and also refusing to offer different proposals options. For case study 6-1, the firm was indicted with the unfair practice of labor mainly because of failing to bargain in good faith (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). According to the union, the company undertook the practice of surface bargaining with fewer intentions of going through the agreement of collective bargaining.

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

Save 25%

After certification of NLRB, meetings between the union and the company started. In 11 months, 18 sessions of bargaining were held, but no contract was yielded after the negotiations between the two companies (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). On a clause of recognition, the union and company reached an agreement that included the union stewards' rights, numbers, and duties; the union utilizing the bulletin board; pay for other leave of absence and jury duty; visitations to the plant by union representatives; and processing procedures for arbitrations and grievances. As per the law judge of administrative hearing case 6-1, the firm met on a frequent interval with the union but had no intention of reaching an agreement. The conduct of the company, though on the bargaining table, does not illustrate any no intention of reaching an agreement. On this account, due to lack of evidence of the company practicing surface bargaining, both the union's and company's proposals were examined by the arbitrator to determine if their substance showed the practice of bargaining of good faith (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013).

The arbitrator found that the company proposals substance and its refusal or inability to modify or change any of its proposition resulted in bargaining of bad faith. Also, the arbitrator found that the response of the company to the objections of the union to the broadness of its original zipper clauses and management rights was to submit new recommendations that were much more extensive. In summary, it's clear to say that the emphasis of the company on abnormally harsh proposals, and would bring about the workers having fewer rights than they had before the agreement was an unfair and unjust practice of labor.

Was the Company Bargaining in Good Faith?

According to the National Labor Relations Act of the US, in the collective bargaining context, negotiators are imposed with the duty to conduct bargaining in "good faith." (Starr, 2014). But the "good faith" negotiation concept is not defined fully, rather the behavior of the case parties is assessed by the court against the standard of the totality of conduct (Shonk, 2020). In general, management-labor negotiation parties are anticipated o agree on an efficient and effective process of bargaining, respond and consider the offers of one another, and under no circumstances are they expected to undermine parties' representative's authority or the bargaining process (Compa, 2014). Based on the above case study, did the company bargain in good faith? Yes, in bargaining in good faith, there is no requirement demanding that both parties must reach an agreement, but it requires both parties to meet and bargain, and the company was involved in all negotiation's sessions only they did not reach to an agreement (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). No, even though the company appeared in all negotiation sessions, its inability or refusal to agree on fair demands indicates its no intentions of reaching to an agreement from the bargaining process. Take and give aspects play an important role in a successful process of bargaining.

In view of the provided information and the conclusions of the court, the company was acting per the requirements of good faith by utilizing the instrument to proactively and flexibly manage the bargaining with the union. This is because the company met for the bargaining sessions with the union at a frequent interim with no intentions of anti-intentions. In addition, the actions of the company, during and after the bargaining sessions, did not show any intentions of not finishing up the bargaining agreement as asserted by the union. Furthermore, the outlined proposals of the company were predominantly factual, and it has the right to deny the aspect of the union gaining control over the company.

In general, the primary aim of the company, particularly in this case study, is to establish a productive foundation of an ongoing relationship with the union of labor. The most significant proposition that the company took into consideration based on the outlined proposals was the issue of wages (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). The company proposed to hold outright control of wages, which is the company's right to decide its employees' wages but not the members of the union. Wages are the center purposes behind unions formation hence plays a significant role in determining the good faith act. Specifically, for this case, the company has a right to waive to hold total control over the wages of the company employees s per the US law. Absolute control over the bargaining agenda is the most critical technique that both union and the company need to embrace. The upper hand in a collective bargaining session is to have control over the agenda, which the company ensured. In summary, the company practiced bargaining in good faith as it's all bargaining was within the act's requirements (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). According to the concept of good faith, it is not a requirement for the two parties to reach an agreement.

Which Company Proposal Was the Most Important in Determining the “Good Faith” Issue?

Based on the outlined eight company's proposal (wages, management rights, zipper clause, no-strike clause, discipline and discharge, layoff ad recall, dues check-off ad non-discrimination clause), the proposal of the company which was most significant in determining the issue of good faith is proposal 8- non-discrimination clause (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). As I would see it, all of the above-mentioned company proposals have specific essentiality in determining the issue of "good faith" since they are all extremely significant issues within the company that the labor union would use in negotiating on behalf of the members of the union. In any case, I picked proposal 8 since it was the simplest proposal as compared to others. Irrespective of the fact that the company refused the non-discrimination proposal on the ground that discrimination is generally illegal hence no reason for the proposal to be included in the contact, I think they could have at least put an effort of accepting the inclusion of the proposal in "good faith." Taking into account that the union and the company did not reach an agreement in any proposal, agreeing on proposal number 8 would have given an exertion on the company that it was taking an interest in bargaining in "good faith."

How Principled Negotiations Techniques Could Be Used in This Case

The main principled technique of negotiation is interests vs. positions. Position vs. interest's negotiation methodology examines how an organization can put their inclinations on the table instead of positions or demands. This methodology can be utilized with the goal that the representative of the union can comprehend why the organization is impervious to a concurrence on the outlined proposals. The position vs. interest negotiation method can give rise to an effective process of negotiation. Separating individuals from case issues is another principled negotiation technique that could have been used in this case. Through the negotiation process, it is ideal to avoid any emotional ties or personal issues related to the case as it will affect the bargaining process. Specifically, in case 6-1, both parties removing their perspectives could impact a better bargaining process as they will concentrate on bargaining about issues at hand (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013).

Focusing on case objective criteria is the third principled technique that could be utilized. As per objective criteria, both the company and the union during the bargaining process should centers mainly around facts rather than wills. On the off chance that the union and the company utilize this strategy, there would have been more understandings. The organization utilized its effective wills and had the option to propose their inclinations on the labor union, a lot to the dismay of the union. With objective criteria, utilizing facts as opposed to wills can result in a smoother negation process where both the union and the company feel accounted for and heard. Lastly, the union and the company could have utilized the option of developing mutual gain as a technique of negotiation. At the point when both parties concur to a particular decision as favorable than no agreement, t process of negotiation becomes more smooth. During the process of negotiation, if the two parties examine their interests, it turns out to be commonly useful for the included parties. If this technique of developing mutual gain for both parties was utilized in case 6-1, where both the union and the company shared mutual interests when bargaining, the probability of an agreement bound to be reached is higher as both parties have something to benefit from the proposals.

References

Carrell, M., and Heavrin, C. (2013). Labor Relations and Collective Bargaining, 10th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. https://www.yourhomeworksolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/edd/2017/03/2974995_MOBOOK7430_1.pdf

Compa, L. A. (2014). An overview of collective bargaining in the United States. https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/912/

Shonk, K. (2020). How to negotiate in good faith. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/negotiate-good-faith/

Starr, I. (2014). National Labor Relations Act. St. John's Law Review, 10(2), 32. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5916&context=lawreview