Ambiguous language Essay

Ambiguous dustup is often a cause for concern when economic consumption contracts are involved, and this is pass offly the situation forbiddenlined in Case take on 9-1 Contract Interpretation. 1. The most important stage were I arbitrator, would be the mantled of the Company regarding the involved readying. 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 contestation, it is clear that the purpose of the provision focuse on an employees cosmos gone for the day, non late for the shift. (One must concede that the terms tardy and absent certainly have different meanings, and by the Companys make admission, the involved provision focused on absenteeism. ) Although failing to arrive on time is a form of absenteeism, it is a temporary, short-lived event, and in this case, was intelligibly unintentional and out of the employees co ntrol.Under the outlined circumstances, the grievants existence 10 minutes late simply does non equate to his being absent. 2. Regardless of the arbitrators decision, no effect would be effrontery to the bargain. The Case Study states, there had been previous grievances on the same issue, notwithstanding 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 protest on the meaning of this particular issue.Given the Unions (i. e. the employees) plant is that 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 troupe scores about the interpretation, the intent, or the common practice applied to the involved provision of t he embodied bargaining agreement. The Case Study states that a meeting of the minds was out of the question as the Union and the Company disagreed aboutwhat was contained in the bodied bargaining agreement (p. 445). The difficulty seems to stem, in part, from the parties having a different apprehensiveness during the negotiation process from the companys current interpretation of the double-time naval division of the contract (p. 445). The Union stated, the companys 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, the companys negotiator . . . stated that the truly 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 argument regarding reasonable application, but stated that it was in response to a tending worker on the negotiating committee and the negotiator rec alled in that situation, he would agree to apply a reasonable standard to maintenance workers for Sunday double-time avocation a tardiness on Saturday due to the difference in weekend scheduling for the 25 maintenance workers (p.445). Neither version rings completely authorized it seems unlikely that the Union would allow the Company to concede a point and then agree that no change be made to the languagea union simply has no reason to settle for a verbal agreement when a contract negotiation is beneathway. On the some 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 merely at this case, it is obvious that the employee neither intended nor could control the event that caused his tardiness. It capacity further be argued that arriving only 10 minutes late under the circumstances (i. e. being a passenger in a fomite tha t 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 employees recent 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 ostensible that the contract language is ambiguous, and to avoid further/future confusion, frustration, and arbitration, an amendment and/or miniature to the contract language should be added during the next bargaining session, if not sooner. rootageCarrell, 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.