The Outsourced

The purpose of this case was to see where liabilities fell when certain parties were not abiding by the original agreement that was entered Into by ARM and 17 local building trade unions. In the case such questions surrounding these liability factors.

After reading the case study Is BE (Bolton Engineering) bound by the terms of the project labor agreement, which it did not directly sign, including the duty to submit this labor dispute final and binding arbitration for resolution? BE is bound by the terms of project labor agreement only when they are working onsite because they did not sign the agreement with labor union directly. Bee’s (Bolton Engineering) contract obligations only relies on the contractual agreement made with Rocket Motor Corporation (ARM).

We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The Project labor agreement only meant to apply to work performed on the Job site s Bolton Engineering contend, or could the terms the project labor agreement also be applied to offside work as well as the union contends? However, the case study does not state the specifics of the labor union agreement that was Included In the agreement between Bolton Engineering and Rocket Motor Corporation It did state that a pledge to adhere to project labor agreement previously signed by ARM and the 17 unions was included.

But a pledge does not necessarily mean that there was a written signed agreement. Another twist to this case in regards as to where the liabilities fall is Bolton Engineering subcontracted out the work and the work was reformed offside and not on site. The only way I could see that Bolton Engineering would be liable in this case if the agreement states conditions applies to onsite and off-site projects and it was also included in the contract agreement between ARM and BE.

In my opinion, I would think that if the pledge was binding it would only be pertaining to the work that was done onsite and off site work even if it was Intended for this project would not be course of violation of the agreement unless It was otherwise stated In the contact agreement. Is It legitimate for a labor organization to negotiate a work preservation clause which seeks to encourage contractors to perform work on the job site using union labor by imposing and economic incentive not to outsource the work elsewhere to lower paid employees.

It is legitimate for labor organization to negotiate work preservation for union workers to perform work on the Job site.

It is the job of the union to protect these workers and ensure that they do not overlook the licensed and union workers for cheap labor that is nonunion ND most likely not licensed. Work preservation clauses are not only legitimate but are generally legal.

As it Is the union’s Job to protect their members Job so they do so by entering Into an agreement bringing work back to a bargaining unit members of the Industry In return the union promises no work stoppage, no work slowdowns, or strikes and the company agrees to use union labor workers at competitive pricing which Is normally specified within the agreement. So yes these types of agreements re valid and it is established to reclaim lost work.

Employers seem to magnetite to line and to get the work done for the less amour of money.

What, if any, legitimate business interest of an employer is served by agreeing to so-called work preservation with one or more unions? The business interests that is an factor for an employer when they agree to labor agreement is number one to promote labor harmony. Basically, companies agree to labor agreements even though it may be more costly to their pockets is to insure that quality work is employed timely and productively.

Also, the company should show interest in work preservations to ensure that workers are insured most non-union labor work that work for a cheaper rate are most likely working without insurance as a contractor. Employers should because it is as great advantage to enter into an agreement with more than one union. But they should always make sure they maintain seep-rate operational control over all entities that are not intended to share collective bargain union obligations.