Reasons CAC`s Proposed Employment Contract is Non-negotiable

ReasonsCAC`s Proposed Employment Contract is Non-negotiable



ReasonsCAC`s Proposed Employment Contract is Non-negotiable

Justlike any other labor union, IBEW aims at maximizing the benefits ofits members by negotiating with CAC on behalf of the employees. IBEWrepresents the workers’ interests in their employment contractswhile also providing legal protection for the members to ensure thatCAC maintains fair practices and safe working conditions. In theproposed items and issues that the CAC Company is willing to take tothe arbitration, I have found significant interests that the proposedcontract has failed to meet. For instance, the lack of considerationof vision plan and changes to the current work schedule reveals thatCAC is not willing to bargain in good faith.

Accordingto Federal law governing the Labor legislation, both sides of thecollective bargaining process must act in good faith (Bureau ofNational Affairs, 2002). That means that they both must take theprocesses seriously and make sincere efforts to reach an agreementthat can be accepted by both of the bargaining sides. In the case ofCAC, the company has already acted in bad faith determined by therather ‘unfulfilling’ offer presented as the proposed contractfor the arbitration. The present paper provides five reasons why thecontract offer brought to the table by CAC is not negotiable based onseveral key issues governing labor-management and legislation.

TheCAC has Demonstrated an Act of Bad Faith in the Negotiations

Justas it has been discussed in the introductory phase of the paper,acting in good faith during arbitration negotiations is recognized byFederal law under the National Labor Relations Act (Bureau ofNational Affairs 2000). The duty of bargaining in good faith meansthat both parties must actively participate in the deliberation toindicate the good intentions that will form the basis of an amicableagreement. In addition to this, the parties must take an effort tooffer viable and worthy solutions to the dispute causing thearbitration negotiations. In the case of CAC, the proposed contractonly adheres fully to two of the demand requirements by the IBEW,which include life insurance and the tuition reimbursements offeredby the union. Other demands have either had a little modification orhave been completely dismissed in the new proposed contract.

NewContract Does Not Favor Staff Productivity

Whilethe critics of labor unions can argue that unions hurt productivityby negotiating work rules, the reverse proves true. Unions play acritical role in increasing worker productivity since they reduceemployee turnover. By negotiating better working terms for theirmembers, IBEW boosts the employee morale, which can go a long way toboosting staff productivity (Bureau of National Affairs, 2002). Whilestudies in this area have failed to reveal whether unions increaseproductivity, the universal agreed method insists that productivityis determined by how managements and unions cooperate to findsolutions to the challenges that they face.

InCAC`s proposed contract, the company does take into considerationcritical morale-boosting policies such as the vision plan foremployees. The union requested that remunerations be paid for 70% forthe employees and 50% for family coverage. In reverse, the union haddemanded that the overall benefits of the staff families be reducedfrom 100% to 50%, which would reduce overall costs. Such benefitsthat the new proposed contracts dismiss are the crucial moraleboosting initiatives hence, proving that the new contract isnon-negotiable.

ProposedContract Diminishes Job Security

Asa labor union, IBEW is entrusted by the members that it will takecare of their welfare including their job security. All the benefitsthat the new contract proposes do not ensure that the employees areproperly motivated to retain their job at the CAC. All workers in allindustries across the world usually have a goal of maximizing thewelfare that they can obtain from any particular job (Bureau ofNational Affairs, 2000). While the welfare is mostly determined bythe wages earned from a job, other factors such as benefits, vacationtime, sick time and personal time policies are also major factorsthat determine one`s motivation to work at a particular company.Since IBEW is tasked of maximizing the practical terms and benefitsof the staff of CAC, then the paper reiterates that the termsproposed by new contract do not promote the job security of theemployees.

NewDeal Fails to Consider Crucial Fundamentals of Labor

Agood case that can demonstrate this is the work schedule changes thatthe union demanded. The union had requested that the work schedule ofthe warehouse employees changes from the current ten to nine hoursper day. The resulting changes would have an effect of lowering theweekly cost of warehousing from $ 33,426.94 to $ 30,083.94 (The CACMock Arbitration. Excel workings). Besides, the union had demandedthat the work schedule of the office staff be changed from 8.30 am to4.30 pm. In addition to this, the office staff is remunerated for theone hour they spend during lunch hours such that their work hoursincrease to nine hours a day. This would increase weekly costs from$1220 to $1372.50. While this move reduces costs for the company, ithas been entirely disregarded in the new proposed contract.

NewContract Does Not Recognize Fair Work Conditions

Inthis section, IBEW regards the decision that only one week be carriedto the next year as being unfair and that CAC is taking advantage ofthe employees (Bureau of National Affairs, 2002). This also affectsthe off sick days proposal, which states that the sick days must beused in the calendar year and are limited to one day in every twomonths. When the employees are not on vacation, they are workinghence, limiting such time is unfair.


Insummation, the paper has indicated the reasons why the proposedcontract by CAC is not negotiable. The contract can be termed asbeing in bad faith since the new rules recommended are not designedto end the stalemate. In addition to that, the regulations fail toprotect the job securities of employees while not favoring staffproductivity.


Bureauof National Affairs. (2000). Labor Arbitration Reports, Volume 113.Bureau of National Affairs: Washington, D.C.

TheCAC Mock Arbitration. Excel workings.