Ambiguous language Essay

Ambiguous language is often a cause for concern when employment contracts are involved, and this is clearly the situation outlined in â€Å"Case Study 9-1: Contract Interpretation. † 1. The most important point were I arbitrator, would be the intent of the Company regarding the involved provision. â€Å"The company stated that the double-time provision was added to the contract as a means of combating absenteeism during the week† (Carrell, M. , & Heavrin, C. J. D. , 2006, p. 445). Based on this statement, it is clear that the purpose of the provision focused on an employee’s being gone for the day, not late for the shift. (One must concede that the terms â€Å"tardy† and â€Å"absent† certainly have different meanings, and by the Company’s own admission, the involved provision focused on â€Å"absenteeism. †) Although failing to arrive on time is a form of absenteeism, it is a temporary, short-lived event, and in this case, was clearly unintentional and out of the employee’s control. Under the outlined circumstances, the grievant’s being 10 minutes late simply does not equate to his being absent. 2. Regardless of the arbitrator’s decision, no â€Å"effect† would be given to the bargain. The Case Study states, â€Å"there had been previous grievances on the same issue, but those arbitration awards were inconsistent† (p. 445). Therefore, a case-by-case analysis seems to be the rule. I do believe that denying the over-time would be dangerous to the long-term relations between the Company and the Union as it is obvious that the two sides clearly disagree on the meaning of this particular issue. Given the Union’s (i. e. the employee’s) position is that â€Å"reasonable tardiness† would be overlooked, a denial could result in walk-outs and/or strikes (p. 445). 3. Although the contract language is clear, an arbitrator should be involved because neither party agrees about the interpretation, the intent, or the common practice applied to the involved provision of the collective bargaining agreement. The Case Study states that â€Å"a meeting of the minds† was out of the question as the Union and the Company disagreed about what was contained in the collective bargaining agreement (p. 445). The difficulty seems to stem, in part, from â€Å"the parties [having] a different understanding during the negotiation process from the company’s current interpretation of the double-time section of the contract† (p. 445). The Union stated, â€Å"the company’s negotiator had agreed not to count reasonable tardiness against the double-time provision but had refused to change the language used in the contract† however, â€Å"the company’s negotiator [. . . ] stated that the very purpose of the double-time section was to allow for double-time pay only if there was no absenteeism in the previous week† (p. 445). The negotiator did recall a statement regarding â€Å"reasonable application,† but stated that it â€Å"was in response to a maintenance worker on the negotiating committee† and the negotiator recalled â€Å"in that situation, he would agree to apply a reasonable standard to maintenance workers for Sunday double-time following a tardiness on Saturday† due to the difference in weekend scheduling for the â€Å"25 maintenance workers† (p. 445). Neither version rings completely true: it seems unlikely that the Union would allow the Company to concede a point and then agree that no change be made to the language—a union simply has no reason to settle for a verbal agreement when a contract negotiation is underway. On the other hand, the negotiator recalls something along the lines of what the Union recalled being said, but the negotiator applies that statement to a special situation involving only the maintenance workers. Looking solely at this case, it is obvious that the employee neither intended nor could control the event that caused his tardiness. It might further be argued that arriving only 10 minutes late under the circumstances (i. e. being a passenger in a vehicle that sustained a flat tire), indicates a likelihood that had the flat not occurred, the grievant actually would have arrived to work early. Looking at this employee’s past record of tardiness (or lack thereof) might reveal the truth of his intentions that day. Given the facts presented and the difficulties raised, it is apparent that the contract language is ambiguous, and to avoid further/future confusion, frustration, and arbitration, an amendment and/or clarification to the contract language should be added during the next bargaining session, if not sooner. Reference Carrell, M. , & Heavrin, C. J. D. (2006). Case Study 9-1: Contract Interpretation. Labor relations an collective bargaining: Cases, practice, and law (8th ed. ). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. 445.