Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on The Obligation to Reduce the Agreement to a Written Contract. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
In five pages this paper examines the customer supplied case involving Employer: HCL, Inc. a/k/a A. B. Inc. and Union: Laborers International Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local 576A, providing summary and answering questions relevant to the case, with applicable citation of the National Labor Relations Act included. One source is listed in the bibliography.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TG15_TGlaborcon.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
America, AFL-CIO, Local 576, involves the extension of a collective bargaining agreement that expired June 30, 2002. The new agreement was to be effective from July 1, 2002 to
June 30, 2005, and a signature page for the new contract was sent to signatories, and was signed by everyone except the company. In August 2002, the company met
with bargaining unit employees, and proposed new wages and additional benefits not included in the agreement extension. The union complained that the company was in violation of Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. These applicable sections read as follows: Sec. 8. [Sec. 158.] (a) [Unfair labor practices by employer] It shall be an unfair
labor practice for an employer-- (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees (5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of his employees (The National
Labor Relations Act, 2004). Upon hearing the unions complaints, the administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the complaints that company was required to sign the new agreement and should not
have dealt directly with the members of the bargaining unit. The union the appealed to the National Labor Relations Board, which has jurisdiction over such matters. The unions position
is that an agreement was reached when the agreement was extended to 2005 as illustrated by the letter of intent. According to the union, when the company neglected to
sign the agreement, it was in violation of the Acts Section 8(a)(5) and (1), and further compounded the issue by meeting directly with bargaining unit members without any union representative
present, which again the union argues violates the criteria expressed in the aforementioned Section of the Act. The companys position is that the letter of intent did not signify
...