Using the attached Case Study Analysis Guide Template. Read the following case and develop a case study. Then answer questions separately. You are required to submit a typed, double-spaced, APA format, and grammatically correct document in Times New Roman with Font size set at 12 point with margins of at least 1 inch.Utilize the case study template. Document must include all in-text citation, reference page, and cover page. Only educational sources are allowed. Document must be completely original, no form of plagiarism is tolerated. Any form of Plagiarism warrants a full refund.
Facts
The union in this case was recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of a group of public employees who worked in mass transit. The city appealed this finding because the bargaining unit contained certain employees who the city claimed were supervisory and should not be included. The State Department of Labor had reviewed this contention by the city and had found that those employees were properly a part of the unit. A lower court reversed that finding and the union appealed.
Decision
The court overruled the lower court and reinstated the Department of Labor’s finding. It pointed out that the lower court had based its reversal of the Department of Labor’s decision on the fact that the department had not followed its own procedures in determining which employees were supervisory. The court stated that the lower court was wrong in requiring that those procedures be followed because, unlike the National Labor Relations Act, which excludes supervisory employees from bargaining units, the state law excludes only employees designated as deputy, administrative assistant, or secretary who have a confidential relationship to the executive head of the actual bargaining unit. Therefore, even though the Department of Labor may have applied some type of past procedure in determining the supervisory nature of the public employee, the state law merely excludes the employees in those three classifications who maintain a confidential relationship with the director.
Source: Seattle v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587, 1977–78, P.B.C. para. 36,046.
Questions 1. In this instance, state law did not mirror the National Labor Relations Act as to those employees excluded from coverage. The court felt this was done intentionally to allow supervisory employees in the public service to bargain collectively with the public employer. Why would a state legislature take such a position?
- A literal interpretation of this statute would allow a confidential employee whose job title did not fall into one of those three categories, that is, deputy, administrative assistant, or secretary, to be part of a bargaining unit which is bargaining collectively with an immediate supervisor. Should the statute be read so literally?
Sample Solution