The Lakeside Packers case demonstrates that the province of Alberta requires the Labour Code to be amended to allow for First Contract Arbitration in the Collective Bargaining Process.

To: Boss From: Re: American Dream Analysis Date 12/5/2014 Subject: Local Union P-9 vs Hormel Meat packing Company. Preparation is key when it comes to negotiating an agreement and a prefect example would be the Hormel Company vs the Local Union P-9 workers(meat packing). The Local Union and Hormel Company both were placed at the negotiation table due to wage cut and “unfair treatment” that was conducted by the management team. This disagreement caused the Local Union to rally up members from the meat packing department that influence the workers and workers from other factories to go on strike. During this negotiation both parties made a few mistakes that are costly and time consuming. Hormel Company

In the case of Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange, there were allegations brought forth by Rajae Nino who felt he was discriminated against by his former employer, on the account of his gender and national origin. When he was employed with said employer, he was given a copy of the company’s employment contract by the human resources manager and instructed him to read it and sign it without affording him any opportunity to negotiate over its terms. With most discrimination cases, “the EEOC encourages the parties to discrimination charges to use mediation” (Walsh, p. 20), with this case the employer invoked an arbitration provision in Nino’s employment contract wherein the Court of Appeals decided the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. On the flip side, if the unconscionable terms were removed from the contract, the remainder of the employment contract could be enforced.

At 1981, The George A. Hormel Meatpacking Company cut wages from $10.69 to $8.25 to claim the need to remain competitive. Companies threat workers that they either close one plant and then open it at lower wage places or exit the business directly. Local unions like P-9 firstly request that all the workers should stick to $10.69 an hour in ten or fifteen years that we could call its target point. The company didn’t agree, they asserted new member workers the company recruited would be paid two dollars less for the same work, which is different from the P-9 decision. Union P-9 refuses any concessions in the negotiation process at first, which proves it is an over-aspiring negotiator. It reveals its reservation point that keeping the $10.69 at least three years too early because it has absolute confidence to win the negotiation. But actually P-9 Local wrongly assesses the counterparties interests and BANTA and lead to final negotiation failure unavoidably.

In 2011 Statistics Canada reported a low unionization rate of 12% in the Canadian retail sector. A key reason for low union density throughout the retail industry is that the Canadian Labour Law is not very conducive to collective bargaining on a small scale (Law of Work, 2013). Although various unions have succeeded in organizing retail entities, negotiations are often complicated and can lead to major disputes (Law of Work, 2013). The 2013/14 labour controversy between Teamsters Local 213 and Richmond IKEA was of no exception, as this highly adversarial dispute lasted 18 months (Teamsters Local 213 , 2014). This dispute resulted in various consequences for employees, IKEA, and consumers. In the context of this situation, the detrimental impacts

In 2005, social, economic, and political conditions in Alberta were ideal for the labour dispute that mushroomed at Lakeside Packers in Brooks, Alberta between workers (and their union) and management. The primarily Caucasian, conservative, change-averse community of Brooks had a long history of farming, family, and church life that hadn’t changed much in generations (Inkster, 2007). The multimillion-dollar beef processing and packing plant (a division of American megacorporation Tyson Foods) was one of the largest slaughterhouses in North America, with a reputation of treating workers badly and being confrontationally anti-union, and had been hiring a large number of immigrant workers who flooded the community. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union had been striving for years to become the bargaining unit for Lakeside workers, and with the influx of immigrant workers, recruitment and advocacy efforts were ballooning. As well, the long-entrenched Progressive Conservative government in Alberta was a supporter of big business and labour laws did little to protect workers.

Since their inception in Canada in the late 18th century, trade unions have acquired a unique legal status which has differentiated them from other types of organizations and societies. More accurately, trade unions’ unique characteristics have given rise to their dissimilar legal status. This status has been shaped by numerous factors including history, common law, statutory law, and court decisions, and it both provides exclusive rights and imposes distinct liabilities on unions that are not evident in other associations. This short essay seeks to explain the ways in which the legal status of trade unions differs from that of other organizations, and the reasons why this status has developed.

The Employment Relations Act 2000 provides a framework for collective bargaining and gives unions its power to arrange better working conditions for union members through collective bargaining. The purpose of this report is to discuss and critique the existing law and proposed change under s 33 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. This report will first discuss perspectives of the political parties in relation to the theoretical perspectives on labour law. Secondly, I will express my own perspective on this matter. Currently, s 33 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 places a legal obligation upon parties’ collective agreement to conclude it negotiations. This means that employers must continue to bargain with unions until the collective negotiations has been concluded as a requirement of good faith in employment relationships. This is avoidable only in very limited circumstances where there is a genuine reason. This places employers in a difficult position where they are forced to bargain despite a deadlock. The National Government has taken a unitarist approach to employment law in respect of its proposed bill to abolish the requirement to conclude collective bargaining. National believes it will create more fairness, balance and flexibility in the labour market. On the other hand, the Labour party adopts a pluralist approach by strongly

Issue: In this case analysis, it is argued whether an arbitration is required and is an implementation of the of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA).

According to Hofmann (2003), for the best interest of the employer, it is a great ideal to use an arbitration agreement because in the long run it will save the employer money and time. Therefore, arbitration agreements may be a simpler and easier way but this agreement only benefits the employer; the employee is the one that may suffer a significant lost. Henceforth, it is belief by the writer that an employee should be informed at the time of employment if there is an arbitration agreement present. The employee deserves to know that in the case of unfair treatment they will not have their rights and obligations met.

In all too many instances, the promise of fair and inexpensive arbitration is not held for American consumers and employees, and companies use mandatory arbitration clauses as a creature to deflect accountability. Employers should take care to accept their counsel frequently review the enforceability of their employment agreements, and employees should take the time to learn and see the paperwork they sign when getting on to a new employer. Courts Offer More Access to Justice than does Mandatory Arbitration When companies can use arbitration to elude such lawsuits by suppressing claims they effectively render our laws toothless. I favor passage of the Arbitration Fairness Act, because I think it is the best way of protecting consumers and employees

With globalization,many changes have been brought up in the workplaces that are leading towards more flexibility and enrollment of the employees (Tong Fay and Anil Verma,2002). “According to a survey -unionized workers across Canada earned$5- 28/hour more than non-union workers; Women with unions earned more too and got paid more fairly (Why unions? ,2015)”. Thus ,it gives us an idea what changes are being brought about by the unions in comparison to non-union when it comes to the wage sector. The union workplaces give a chance to the members to bargain for their benefits which includes not only social well being but also the say,the right to speak up about their own views therefore giving them the chance to talk about their problems. The union have been progressed to give a fair wage

What criteria, then, should unions use in deciding whether to participate in a QWL program? Can a union accurately measure an employer 's "sincerity" in urging cooperation? In committing itself and its members to QWL, what steps can a union take to protect and strengthen its own role? For unions, these are critical questions, and while rewards exist, the risks are even greater. These decisions are further complicated by the serious lack of labor-oriented resources or training materials. The vast quantity of QWL material in existence is either designed for management personnel or tor joint labor-management groups. Although many international unions have issued statements of principle, guidelines and checklists to assist locals in making decisions about QWL, no systematic study or training manual has been compiled with the express purpose of helping unions protect their interests within a QWL process. Inside the Circle: A Union Guide to QWL by Mike Parker represents an important breakthrough on this front. The book examines a variety of union experiences with QWL, detailing the problems and pitfalls in existing programs, while at the same time providing ideas and guidelines on how unions can participate to their own advantage. A union activist, Parker draws heavily on his background in QWL. Throughout the book, he analyzes the ideological assumptions and organizational

Labor contract issues are challenging for any manager. This is particularly true of public administrators serving in the public sector. For many administrator?s one of their most difficult responsibilities is negotiating with a union that represents employees these same administrators must ask to be proficient in their roles to serve the public good. Realizing that ultimately, the public elects officials that control the hiring and firing of the administrator. However, as the employees are successful, so then will the administrator be successful. This places the administrator in a difficult position as they must work almost daily with the employees and the union representatives, but at the same time the administrator must represent the best interest of their constituency ? the general population ? to which they are ultimately responsible. This dynamic creates a necessary tightrope that can be difficult to walk with the administrator desiring to ?play nice? with the employees while at the same time not getting trampled by these same employees from their demands during negotiations. Luckily, a prudent administrator can take steps to navigate this fine line while preparing for the negotiation, during the negotiation and after the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement. If the administrator?s goal is labor harmony before, during and after negotiations?and public harmony before, during and after negotiations then the most important aspect of negotiations starts

The ease at which a lawyer can manipulate a contract is aggravated by the incapacity of the worker to understand and contest a contract. The worker seldom drafts contractual terms and there is largely unsupported evidence to suggest that workers would knowingly classify themselves as an independent contractor. As the unanimous decision in Autoclenz rightly identifies, albeit in a different industry, employers are in a “position to dictate the written terms which the other party has to accept”. In some ways, using contracts to determine the legal relationship in this context is inherently flawed when one considers the fundamental inequality in bargaining power between an employer and worker in what is viewed as an asymmetrical relationship. That is to say, inequality in bargaining power makes it easier for lawyers to draft contracts in an organisation’s favour. The Lords unanimously upheld the decision of Aikens LJ in the Court of Appeal, and his determination that the inequality of bargaining power should result in a different approach to the contract. Contradicting this view, Peter Bosa in his submission to thr ABCC Inquiry argues that such a suggestion is “paternalistic”, and that in fact workers “are very good at looking out for themselves”, because without workers, they can have no business. His support for the common law test is that it is both entrenched and the “most reliable method”. Yet, Dr Underhill’s research on the industry found that the businesses

In the prevailing state of trade unionism in India, compulsory arbitration has conferred more benefits on worker than a divided trade union movement could have been able to achieve. Compulsory adjudication might have, to some extent weakened collective bargaining, but has helped the workers in many poorly organized sectors in securing gains.