You be the Arbitrator: Refusing to Arbitrate
George Reynolds
Prof. Legler
Florida State College at Jacksonville
Summer C-8

The union and the employer are at odds with one another because the union feels that the proper channels were not used in regards to settling the four major issues currently at while the employer understood that there was no need to arbitrate because only in agreement, to go through the arbitration process, should there be reason to. The union wanted to, in their eyes, correctly deal with the pay issues, the negative performance memo given to a particular employee and the warnings given to the entire crew from the employer as a means to create a form of fear to persuade the crew to close their mouths when it came to voicing their concerns and opinions when it came to company policy and rules put forth by the company. It is understood why the union chose to push for an outside party to hear the matter as this is best when trying to decide a fair arbitration or judicial decision.
As arbitrator, what would be your award and opinion in this arbitration?
As the arbitrator I would side with the employer because the language of the CBA explicitly states that the four issues the union/employees had was not subject to arbitration. It was the decision of management to issue an unsatisfactory memo to a particular employee who was not performing at the level(s) of excellence that was expected of her. Very hard for an outside party to come in and attempt to regulate such a decision that’s in the power of managers to make concerning their employee(s). Also, what management chooses to pay certain employees is not up for arbitration because that is their right to offer a wage. It is up to that prospective employee to either accept the wage or to deny it and look for employment elsewhere. The issuing of a warning to the entire crew could never be seen through an objective scope, not even from an arbitrator, because individual employees can...