LMDSI

506: Outside Contracting

Administrator — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:11:20 +0000

Leo Brown, S.J., Labor Arbitrator, past President, National Academy of Arbitrators, former Professor of Industrial Relations, St. Louis University

John Fillian, Esq., General Counsel to the UAW

Robert Webster, Manager of Human Resources, Sun Oil Company

Highlights: Outside contracting involves Management sending out work to an outside firm over the Union’s objection. Where the Contract is Silent Regarding Outside Contracting: The Union regards Management contracting out work as interfering with the the labor agreement. Management sees the management’s rights clause as permitting the employer to adapt to business conditions as needed unilaterally. Where the Employer has a Temporary Change in Production: The Union view is to let Management proceed with temporary outside contracting to meet unexpected needs. The Management view is that it can decide whether or not it wants to staff-up. Guideposts: When the outside contractor has the work to begin with, decisions are entirely Management’s. When the bargaining unit has the work to begin with, Management should first bargain with the Union.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	58 Minutes
Moderator	Leo Brown, S.J., Labor Arbitrator, past President, National Academy of Arbitrators, former Professor of Industrial Relations, St. Louis University
Management’s View	Robert Webster, Manager of Human Resources, Sun Oil Company
Labor’s View	John Fillian, Esq., General Counsel to the UAW

505: Work Standards

Administrator — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:10:12 +0000

Jack Stieber, Labor Arbitrator, Prof. of Economics, Michigan State University

Henry Seroka, Director of Industrial Engineering, Allied Industrial Workers

Lester Kramer, V.P. for Employee Relations, Libbey-Owens Ford

Highlights: Work Standards involve the quantification of work efforts by the measurement of time to perform a given operation. Establishing Work Standards: Management may unilaterally use work standards to assess its processes. The determination of work standards is based upon industry methods. The reason for work standards is to reduce production costs. Common Issues Involving Work Standards: There is a degree of subjectivity in setting the standard. Usually work standards are implemented in situations of a worker controlled pace of operation. The setting of a pay ceiling can result in down-time for the fast employee with associated problems. Changes in standards should be by joint labor-management committees.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	58 Minutes
Moderator	Jack Stieber, Labor Arbitrator, Prof. of Economics, Michigan State University
Management’s View	Lester Kramer, V.P. for Employee Relations, Libbey-Owens Ford
Labor’s View	Henry Seroka, Director of Industrial Engineering, Allied Industrial Workers

504: Wildcat Stoppages

Administrator — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:05:30 +0000

M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI

Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company

Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Highlights: Wildcat stoppages most seriously involve walkouts in violation of the labor agreement. There must yet remain unexhausted steps in the grievance process and the union must have pledged not to strike. Courts have implied a no-strike clause where the labor agreement has an arbitration clause. Meting Out Discipline: Variable penalties are usually applied depending on degree of participation. Duration of the strike is usually not a factor. Extenuating circumstances generally do not ameliorate the penalty. Remedies of Management include a court injunction and a suit or arbitration seeking damages and/or punitive damages. Where a substantial number of employees call in “sick,” Management would be advised to investigate. The Union has a duty to try to stop the strike.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	58 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

503: The Duty of Fair Representation

Administrator — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:03:58 +0000

M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI

Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company

Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Highlights: The Doctrine of the Duty of Fair Representation has its origin in Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947. In the Supreme Court Case of Vaca v. Sipes (1965), the Court held the Union must decide the merits of a grievance in a good faith, non-arbitrary manner. The Supreme Court refined the Doctrine in the case of Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight (1976), where the Court held that when the Union breaches its duty of representation and the Management has breached the labor agreement in taking its protested action, then both Parties are subject to court ordered remedies. Affect on Arbitration: The number of cases has visibly increased out of fear, but arbitration is not a cloak of immunity. When the Union and Management use due diligence and good faith in settling grievances, they have met the Duty. Grievances should be settled on the merits. The Union can settle a grievance without the grievant’s OK, provided the settlement is patently fair.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	60 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

502: Rights of Union Representatives

Administrator — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:01:22 +0000

M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI

Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company

Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

Highlights: The Union’s right of representation of the workforce derives from the NLRA, Section 7 and Section 8, Paragraphs 1 and 2, as well as the labor agreement. In event of an untoward incident, the foreman should desist questioning an accused employee upon notification by the employee that the steward is wanted. The steward should be released promptly, work duties permitting. Generally, a complaint is lodged by an employee, not the steward. The steward may lodge a policy grievance on his own accord. Management’s view is the steward is not a “policeman”. Union’s view is the steward enforces the labor agreement. The steward has a right to spend a reasonable amount of time with the accused employee. Right to interview witnesses is based upon reasonableness.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	58 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Malcolm Denise, former V.P. for Labor Relations, Ford Motor Company
Labor’s View	Raymond Shetterly, former Director of the Arbitration Services Dept., UAW

501: Management’s Rights

Administrator — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:00:20 +0000

M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI

Geoffrey Glaser, Regional Mgr, of Ind. Rel., Montgomery Ward & Co.

Howard Coughlin, former Pres., Office and Professional Employees Intl. Union, former Executive Committee Chairman of the American Arbitration Association

Highlights: The Management’s Rights Clause gives Management all rights except as otherwise modified in the labor agreement. Absence of a Management’s Rights Clause in the contract: There is the concept of inherent Management’s Rights which would be implied regardless. A benefit of having a Management’s Rights Clause is that particular Management rights are enumerated. Affect on the Grievance Process and Access to Arbitration: The extent of Management’s rights is largely determined by the passivity or tolerance of the Union. Management and the Union each have inherent rights.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	57 Minutes
Moderator	M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI
Management’s View	Geoffrey Glaser, Regional Mgr, of Ind. Rel., Montgomery Ward & Co.
Labor’s View	Howard Coughlin, former Pres., Office and Professional Employees Intl. Union, former Executive Committee Chairman of the American Arbitration Association

402: Control of Absenteeism

Administrator — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:59:00 +0000

John Tadlock, Esq., General Counsel, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers

Larry Schultz, Labor Arbitrator, former Director of Arbitrations Services, FMCS

Thomas Haley, former Dir. of Employee Relations, Detroit Free Press

Highlights: Absenteeism is the habitual failure to report for work. The Union has an interest to protect resources allocatable to employees who are willing to work. The Management view is that when employees are hired they impliedly represent they will work. The Absence Control System: Absence rules must be formulated and promulgated. All rules must be reasonable and made known. Enforcement: The principles of corrective discipline should be implemented by progressively harsher penalties. Corrective discipline must be designed to apprise the employee of the problem and give time for correction. After a predetermined period of time, typically 12 to 16 months, the employee’s absence record should be cleaned.

Format	Three member panel discussion
Length	58 Minutes
Moderator	Larry Schultz, Labor Arbitrator, former Director of Arbitrations Services, FMCS
Management’s View	Thomas Haley, former Dir. of Employee Relations, Detroit Free Press
Labor’s View	John Tadlock, Esq., General Counsel, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers

401-2: Live Symposium on Absenteeism

Administrator — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:57:57 +0000

M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI

John Sembower, Labor Arbitrator

Marvin Feldman, Labor Arbitrator

Highlights: Meting Out Discipline for Absenteeism Theory: Discipline exists as corrective, not punitive, wherein discharge occurs after application of progressive discipline. In the present day of world market competition, there must be reasonableness from both Management and the Union. Formulating and Applying Absence Control Rules: Create well thought-out rules to impress employees with the need for reformation based upon the application of progressive penalties. Triggering of discipline must be based upon a predetermined number of infractions in a set time period. Discipline must be applied consistently. Records should include: time cards, disciplinary notice, summary record in graphic form, and notice of absence with criteria for rating. Doctor’s Certificates: The certificate must recite a specific factual foundation for the absence.

Format	A live public symposium on absenteeism conducted by LMDSI in Chicago.
Length	47 Minutes
Faculty	Marvin Feldman, Labor Arbitrator James Hellquist, Labor Relations Director, U.S. Postal Service M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI James Smith, Industrial Relations manager, Illinois Bell John Sembower, Labor Arbitrator Thomas Thompson, National Representative, American Postal Workers

401-1: Live Symposium on Absenteeism

Administrator — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:56:42 +0000

M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI

Thomas Thompson, National Representative, American Postal Workers

James Smith, Industrial Relations manager, Illinois Bell

James Hellquist, Labor Relations Director, U.S. Postal Service

Highlights: The Various Absence Control Systems Introduction to the Concept of No-Fault. Systems Utilizing Progressive Discipline. Discipline is corrective through progressive penalties. Operation of the Progressive Discipline System: The key is application of sound common sense. Where rules are promulgated, the arbitrator can question of reasonableness Management’s view of the No-Fault System: The employer has the right to terminate an employee based upon the attendance record. Sick-leave and days off are lumped together. Implementation should be negotiated. Union’s view of the No-Fault System: A Management embracing No-Fault treats its employees in a cold blooded manner. It flies in the face of the principle of progressive discipline and fair treatment.

Format	A live public symposium on absenteeism conducted by LMDSI in Chicago.
Length	42 Minutes
Faculty	Marvin Fledman, Labor Arbitrator James Hellquist, Labor Relations Director, U.S. Postal Service M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI James Smith, Industrial Relations manager, Illinois Bell John Sembower, Labor Arbitrator Thomas Thompson, National Representative, American Postal Workers

313-316: Closing the Deal

Administrator — Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:54:28 +0000

J. Richard Dempsey, S.J., Arbitrator, Prof. of Industrial Relations, Univ. of Detroit

Harold Bondy, Coordinator, Teamsters Joint Council 43

William Louwers, Dir. of Employee Relations, Blue Cross, Blue Shield of Michigan

Howard Coughlin, former Pres., Office and Professional Employees Intl. Union, former Executive Committee Chairman of the American Arbitration Association

M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder of LMDSI

Program 313: Squeezing the Sponge Dry Highlights: Remaining unsettled “must demands” determine whether settlement can occur at the eleventh hour. Everything not included in the agreement is excluded. Check the list of all remaining open issues which can serve as quid pro quo for settlement. Raise pioneering ideas to test the other side’s reaction. Program 314: Closing the Deal Highlights: Eleventh Hour Considerations: Leave the table so that you can re-evaluate your position and gauge maximum retreats. Return to the table and use every skill of persuasion. Closing the deal at the eleventh hour requires special tactics. Impose a news blackout; Scale-down committees so they will work efficiently; Introduce a mediator; and Propose off-the-record trial balloons. Program 315: Writing the Language Highlights: Punctuation can critically affect the meaning of language; every word let in further determines the mutual rights of the Parties. Adjectives, adverbs and qualifying phrases modify nouns and verbs. Guideposts: Do not propose in the exact terms you want it drafted in. Do not draft the final language after ratification. Try to draft the final language just after tentative agreement. The author of the language will have ambiguities resolved against him/her; consider the other side write the language. Program 316: Summary Evaluations on Collective Bargaining Highlights: Collective Bargaining is a form of bartering, which occurs under the necessity to reach agreement. Never show weakness. The negotiator must be the sole spokesman. Be prepared; work for the best, be prepared for the worst. Don’t retain language that is meaningless. Know what you want; know what you can give up. Don’t be shocked by “sky-high” initial proposals. Listen to the other side. Think on your feet. No matter how favorable the agreement, how it is written is critical.

Format	Four lectures.
Length	52 Minutes
Presenters	Harold Bondy, Coordinator, Teamsters Joint Council 43 William Louwers, Dir. of Employee Relations, Blue Cross, Blue Shield of Michigan Howard Coughlin, former Pres., Office and Professional Employees Intl. Union, former Executive Committee Chairman of the American Arbitration Association M. David Keefe, Labor Arbitrator, Founder LMDSI