ADM301 - Case Study 4

.docx

School

Barry University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

301

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MasterZebra1494

Running head: CASE STUDY FOUR Questions 1. If you were Ms. Beauregard, how would you compare Mrs. Davis’ and Mr. Jasper’s qualifications? What factors would be most important to you? If I were Ms. Beauregard, I would take work experience and education into consideration to compare Mrs. Davis’ and Mr. Jasper’s qualifications. Although an education is of utmost importance in any leadership role, work experience that demonstrates how that knowledge is applied in a working environment is a key factor for me. Having degrees and certifications shows how one can apply themselves to achieve a goal of personal and professional growth. The ability to then apply that to real world experience allows for a more unique and individualized skillset. 2. Analyze the key arguments that each side makes. Which are most compelling? Why? Position of the Union: Besides comparing qualifications and experience between Mr. Jasper and Ms. Davis, the most compelling argument on the side of the Grievant was the allegation of Ms. Beauregard’s negligence. This is an attempt to discredit Ms. Beauregard’s role and responsibilities as the Personnel Director for the County. Discrediting someone’s ability to do their job adequately could instill a great deal of mistrust and raise concerns. This could cause further trouble for the county if deemed true. Position of the Stonewall County Personnel Department: The argument of work experience and education is a strong one on its own. Ms. Davis’ qualifications are competitive enough to have granted her the wages she was given. But the most compelling argument on this side would be that Mr. Jasper has recently received the max salary increase allowed with his promotion. Policies that apply to promotions and salaries are in place and going against those policies may create an unfair system for other employees.

CASE STUDY FOUR 2 3. Management argues that the arbitrator should defer to managerial judgment. Generally, under what conditions should arbitrators defer to managerial authority and under what conditions should they not? Arbitrators should defer to managerial authority in the conditions that there were to be proven reasoning that could provide justification of personal bias toward the applicants when considering an increase of salary. If there were to be personal bias toward the applicants and the higher salary could not be justified, the arbitrator should not defer to managerial authority as the conditions do not meet that need. 4. Is the job of the arbitrator to determine whether the Grievant deserves higher pay or is the arbitrator’s job simply to determine whether or not the collective bargaining agreement has been violated? Or both? Both. As a third-party neutral, an arbitrator is hired by both, union and management, to weigh out both sides of a dispute. They are then able to make a final and binding decision on that dispute without the need to take the issue to the courts. [ CITATION Wil16 \l 1033 ] 5. If you were to re-write the language of the wage adjustment contract clause, perhaps incorporating concepts covered in this chapter (e.g., skill-based pay, job evaluation, two- tier pay plan), how would you improve the clause? Justify your revision. If I were to re-write the wage adjustment contract clause, I would incorporate a skill-based pay (SBP) system that allows an employee’s individual skillset and knowledge determine their compensation. This also allows the company to evaluate where an employee could benefit from further training and education opportunities. Having this agreement in place also adds a competitive edge in the workplace that would work as an incentive for all to enhance their skills. References

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help