Vacation Pay and Seniority List
Vacation Pay
It is vital that organizations in the social sector publicize with the relevant laws on employment that have an effect on the organization as well as their employees (Fischer, 2008). Over and again, organizations on the social sector begin with persons in one accord informally joining hands for the sole intention of dealing with a testing social problem. In spite of all the ties keeping those that work collectively on a single social mission, organizations on the social sector have a duty to comply with the applicable employment laws as they strive to implement the relevant procedures and policies (Fischer, 2008). In the case study, the company’s action to withhold vacation pay did not illegally affect the employees’ right to collectively bargain. This issue raised in the case study all depends on the written policy agreed upon by the employer and the employees. Additionally, if the policy was clearly communicated at the time the employee was hired matters. For instance, in a situation where an employer informs workers during hiring in writing that unused vacations and leave will be forfeited or lost upon termination, and then the employee cannot claim it. In this case, the company’s interpretation of the employment contract was legitimate as vacation rights for the company in the past were not determined by an expired contract but contracts in effect during payment. Employers have no right to withhold any part of an employee’s wage, either through keeping part of or the entire paycheck or through incremental deductions in wage from a number of paychecks against any occurrence. This action may mount to confiscation of pay hence a direct violation of the law. In this case, withholding of the vacation pay affected every worker and termination of the strike required an agreement would not have caused the payment. If non-striking employees had received vacation benefits, then the decision would have been different. This is because payment of benefits depended on an agreement on a contract not on the decision made by the employee to strike or not to participate in the industrial action.
In a defined benefits plan, the benefit to every worker’s future is determined through a particular agreed upon formula. This usually centers on the employees, length of service, their earnings or both. On the part of the union, a proposal to change the eligibility clause to avoid future concerns will be appropriate. Here, the eligibility for a vacation in any calendar year during the term of the agreement should include a situation where the continuity of work has been interrupted for an agreed reason like sick leave, normal leave, study leave or even industrial actions like a strike. Such an understanding will help to clear up a number of things. Firstly, the employment contract will include the events in case of a strike regarding the payment of benefits reducing the chances for court cases on the legitimacy of company decisions or the actions taken up by the union. Secondly, the contract will leverage the cost commitment taken up by the employer through adoption of a defined benefits plan. Striking employees deserve payment for accrued vacation time. This is because a striking employee is still an employee only that they have a divided stand with the employer and is, therefore, in protest of the decision. However, this will depend on the terms of the employment agreement. If the agreement specifically points that the payment will not be made, then the accrued vacation time will not be paid.
Seniority is measured through the length of service worker has in continuing or even temporary job position and usually points to a precedence of position over others in the same rank (Fischer, 2008). On a school district seniority list, the union protested the inclusion of administrators. This list comprises of accumulated seniority of former administrators returning to teach as well as former teachers who are now administrators. The arbitrator for this case sates that there is no reason enough to assume that administrators continued to accumulate seniority since the collective bargaining contract negotiated by the union only protects the members of the unit. Since administrators leave the unit, the union has no need to protect them. However, even when administrators in the school system come from the bargaining unit ranks, the union does not wish indirectly to benefit its members capable of being promoted on the basis that they are already members and once a teacher is promoted to an administrator's position, they leave the bargaining unit due to seniority. In this case, the union will have no need to benefit this group since they already enjoy the benefits when they are teachers and will continue doing so even after becoming administrators. Upon promotion, these members will enjoy benefits and therefore giving them the benefits on the basis of potential would not be the best route for the union to take.
In the past practice, the arbitrator found only one instance where a returning administrator to elementary teaching failed to be placed on a layoff list for elementary teachers. Therefore, the arbitrator did not give credence to the school district’s contention that past practice should be sustained. If there was past practice, I think that the arbitrator would have found that the language of the contract meant that seniority rights were to continue to be accumulated. The fact of this case is that the provision is stating that interpretation of the seniority section specifying that system-wide seniority would be computed from the date of employment is so broad it allows the continuation of seniority accumulation when a teacher is promoted to an administrator’s position. Using the facts above, the arbitrator would have considered the language of the contract stated that when a teacher is promoted to the position of an administrator, they left the bargaining unit for the purpose of seniority and did not accumulate seniority for the time spent while working as an administrator. However, system-wide seniority is computed from the date of employment. This gives the teachers with the highest seniority the benefit of being laid off last. Had there been past practice, the arbitrator would have found that the language of the contract meant that seniority rights were to continue to be accumulated because the interpretation states that in the contracts of the system-wide seniority within the continuous service with the district. If there were several instances in past practices where an administrator who returned to elementary teaching was not placed on a layoff list for elementary teachers, then the arbitrator would not have found the language of the contract to mean that seniority rights were to continue to be accumulated.
References
Fischer, R. (2008). Rewarding Seniority: Exploring Cultural and Organizational Predictors of
Seniority Allocations. Journal Of Social Psychology, 148(2), 167-186.
