Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Society for Human Resource Management
introduction
This case promotes learning about the labor relations process in the United States. The case follows the actual efforts of undergraduate resident assistants (R As) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass Amherst) who sought to be represented by the United Auto Workers union for collective bargaining purposes.
Throughout the case, you are given opportunities to analyze management actions and offer recommendations. Thus, the case reinforces understanding of core labor relations concepts and offers opportunities for analysis of decisions made by actual participants in the labor relations process.
U.S. employees have the right to form labor unions and engage in collective bargaining with their employers over wages and working conditions. These rights became institutionalized with passage of the Wagner Act in 1935 (now known as the National Labor Relations Act, or the NLR A). This law was developed, in part, by three key underlying assumptions (Holley, Jennings & Wolters, 2009):
The NLR A is not applicable to public-sector workers, however, because public- sector workers at the federal, state and local levels are not considered “employees” under the act. Collective bargaining rights for federal government employees were granted in the early 1960s and then solidified with passage of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. Meanwhile, collective bargaining rights for state and local government employees are covered under state law.
2 © 2011 society for Human resource management. patrick p. mcHugh, ph.D.
There is wide variation among states regarding the collective bargaining rights of public-sector workers. In about half the states (e.g., Massachusetts and Ohio), nearly all public employees have the right to engage in collective bargaining. In about a dozen other states (including Maryland and Texas), collective bargaining rights are limited to certain occupational groups. Several states have no laws protecting public employees’ collective bargaining activities, while two states (North Carolina and Virginia) prohibit collective bargaining for state and local public employees (Budd, 2010).
In contrast to the private sector, public-sector employees engaging in collective bargaining are often limited in terms of the right to strike, constrained regarding permissible bargaining topics and encouraged to use some form of interest arbitration to settle disputes. While these differences are important, many state laws incorporate rules and processes that parallel those outlined in the NLR A. Indeed, the NLR A was often used as the model for state-level collective bargaining laws. Therefore, while this case is based on events involving public-sector workers in Massachusetts, many of the labor-management processes for Massachusetts public employees emulate those found in the private sector.
case overview
This case will help you better understand the three phases of the labor relations process:
n Phase one focuses on the rights, responsibilities and actions of union and management representatives regarding union selection, the representation campaign and the certification election.
n Phase two examines the bargaining activities associated with the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement.
n Phase three focuses on contract administration, which primarily deals with the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement (Holley, Jennings & Wolters, 2009).
You will learn about the actual efforts of undergraduate student resident assistants (R As) at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (UMass Amherst), who wanted to be represented by a union for collective bargaining purposes. The R As tried to organize under Massachusetts law (modeled after the NLR A) governing public employees.
At the beginning of the case, you find Flynn Oberond, director of human resources at Sofie College (a fictitious college), keenly interested in the events at UMass Amherst because of concerns about similar actions occurring at Sofie College. After reading the events documented in this essay, Oberond (and readers) will be asked to offer recommendations to others interested in the labor relations implications of the case. You will have an advantage over Oberond because you will be given study questions to guide your reading and enhance your understanding. A list of abbreviations is included at the end of the case.
© 2011 society for Human resource management. patrick p. mcHugh, ph.D. 3
Learning objectives
At the conclusion of this case, you should have a better understanding of:
n The factors that can lead to employee interest in unionization.
n The process of union organizing, union tactics and the various reactions of management when facing union activity.
n Labor law by comparing the similarities and differences of public- and private- sector collective bargaining regulations.
n The way various stakeholders (students, faculty, the media, other unions and other universities) can affect the labor relations process.
n The bargaining process and its outcomes.
required Learning materiaLs
This student workbook and assigned reading from the instructor.
additionaL resources
The following materials may help you develop a deeper understanding of various aspects of the case and can be a resource for further investigation of the topics covered in the case.
Budd, J. W. (2008). Labor relations: Striking a balance (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin, pp. 135-142, 187-228.
Holley, W. H., Jennings, K. M., & Wolters, R. S. (2009). The labor relations process (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, pp. 5-32, 117-237, 569- 618.
Katz, H. C., Kochan, T. A., & Colvin, A. J. S. (2008). An introduction to collective bargaining & industrial relations (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 345-374.
The following videos are about the R A union activity at UMass Amherst:
n Brian Oelberg. (Poster). UMass arrests 35 in R A sit-in for union recognition [Video]. (2002, April 29) Retrieved from www.archive.org/details/ UMassR A Arrests.
n Brian Oelberg. (Poster). UMass R As rally and march for union recognition [Video]. (2002, May 2) Retrieved from www.archive.org/details/ UMassR Asprotest6May02.
n Papercityfilms. (Poster). UMass R A Union March in Boston [Video]. (2007, January 12). Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQO2TwuxF6k.
4 © 2011 society for Human resource management. patrick p. mcHugh, ph.D.
The outcome of the March 2002 election on the UMass Amherst campus was historic. Undergraduate students elected to form the first undergraduate student/ employee union in the country. To many union supporters the election was more than a means to advance the employment interests of undergraduate R As at UMass Amherst; it meant that a larger movement for union representation of undergraduate students/employees could launch at other colleges. While administrators at the university were anxious about the election outcome, administrators from colleges across the country were interested in the implications of the election for their own institutions.
Flynn Oberond, the director of human resources at Sofie College, was keenly interested in the events at UMass Amherst, as were other key administrative leaders at Sofie College. Given Oberond’s role as director of human resources, many in the administration looked to him as an expert in these matters. Could what happened at UMass Amherst occur at Sofie College? To answer this question, Oberond needed to understand the pivotal events that occurred on the campus. Based on those events, what information and recommendations could Oberond share with the administrative leaders at Sofie College?
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Society for Human Resource Management |
Society for Human Resource Management