89%(19)17 out of 19 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 6 pages.
Running Head: THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT OUT1HRM 6635 Case Assessment: The Right to Contract OutUnknown2/24/2019
THE RIGHT TO CONTRACT OUT 21.)Which party has the burden of proof? Which level of proof should be used? Why?In all cases except for disciplinary and discharge cases, the union has the burden of proving the company violated the labor contract (A Practical Guide to Grievance Arbitration, p.11, 2019).Therefore, in this case the union would have the burden of proof considering the grievance filed by the union pertains to a violation of the labor contract that did not result in discharge nor discipline. The level of proof that should be used is preponderance of evidence, which is where testimonies and evidence must be adequate to overcome opposing presumptions and evidence (Holley, Ross, Wolters, p.611, 2017). The reason preponderance of evidence is the level of proof that should be used is because; it is the level that is typically used in disputes over the interpretation and application of contract language that does not deal with discipline, such as overtime assignments, promotions, etc. (Holley et al, p.611, 2017).2.)Is this case a matter of “good faith” on part of the Company or a contract interpretation issue? Why? Why not?This case is a matter of a contract interpretation issue. There are numerous reasons why grievances are submitted for arbitration. Ambiguous language resulting in conflicting interpretations by union and management, disputes arising over which of several overlapping agreement provisions controls a certain situation, and new circumstances on which an agreement is silent or conflicts over managerial changes in established practices are all reasons contract interpretation issues are submitted to arbitration (Knight, p.714, 1983). It appears in this case, the