General Instructions For Case Studies: A Short Guide ✓ Solved

General Instructions For Case Studiesa Case Study Is A Short Descripti

A case study is a short description of a real business situation. Analyzing case studies gives you the opportunity to apply course concepts to real business problems. Cases are generally written for several types of analysis. Usually, there is not a "right or wrong" answer. Rather, cases provide a vehicle for you to demonstrate your understanding and ability to apply course concepts.

You must use appropriate sources (properly cited) to support your position. Check your analysis by assessing how well it demonstrates your subject knowledge. If your answer relies on your impressions of the topic prior to taking this course, it is likely that the analysis is not your best effort. You are strongly encouraged to use the following outline so that your analysis is organized appropriately:

1. Identify both the key issues and the underlying issues. In identifying the issues, you should be able to connect them to the business principles which apply to this situation.
2. Discuss the facts which affect these issues. The case may have too much information. In your discussion, you should filter the information and discuss those facts which are pertinent to the issues identified above.
3. Discuss your tentative solution to the problem and how you would implement your solution. What actions would you propose to correct the situation, based on the knowledge you have gained in this course? Be sure to support your recommendation by citing references in the text and in the supplementary readings. You should also draw on other references such as business periodicals and relevant journals.
4. Discuss follow-up and contingency plans. How will the organization know that your proposed solution is working? What should they do if it does not work?

Remember that an ANALYSIS is more than simply a SUMMARY of the Case Study.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Arbitration Case: Acme Manufacturing and United Machine Workers

Introduction

The arbitration case between Acme Manufacturing Company and the United Machine Workers Union presents a complex scenario involving employee rights, management authority, workplace procedures, and union representation. This analysis will evaluate whether the disciplinary action taken against shop steward Kyla Martin was justified under the contractual and management provisions, and recommend an appropriate resolution aligning with labor principles and company policies.

Key Issues and Underlying Principles

The primary issue is whether Acme Manufacturing’s suspension of Kyla Martin was permissible under the collective bargaining agreement. Under Article V, Employee Responsibilities, employees are required to follow established rules, and the union has the right to grieve claims of unjust application. The company’s management rights, outlined in Article X, provide that management has the authority over operational matters, including disciplinary actions, but they must be exercised within contractual limits.

The specific shop regulation in question, Regulation #9, states that refusal to obey orders from a supervisor can be grounds for disciplinary action. The question hinges on whether Martin’s refusal to initial the overtime sheet, under the circumstances, constitutes insubordination or a protected union activity. Additionally, the context of prior practices and the absence of formal procedures regarding the initialing process influence this determination.

Analysis of Parties’ Arguments

Union’s Position

The union argues that no past practice or contractual provision mandated employees to initial overtime refusal sheets, and thus Martin’s refusal was within her rights. According to the union, the supervisor’s demand to initial the sheet was an attempt to impose a new, unwritten rule. Since there was no prior notice or formal procedural change, discipline for non-compliance infringes on employee rights and union protections. The union’s appeal, therefore, supports reinstating Martin with full back pay and removing the disciplinary record.

Company’s Position

The company contends that it has the right under management rights provisions to establish reasonable rules, including the requirement for employees to initial overtime refusal sheets as a record-keeping procedure. The supervisor’s order was a reasonable exercise of managerial authority and aimed at standardizing documentation to ensure contract compliance. The company argues that Martin’s failure to obey a direct order, especially as a union shop steward, undermines workplace discipline and sets a problematic precedent. The suspension was justified, and the arbitration should uphold the disciplinary action.

Evaluation of Arguments and Decision

The critical factor is whether the company’s requirement to initial the overtime refusal sheet was a reasonable, existing rule or a new, unwritten expectation. Management has the right to establish procedures, but these must be clearly communicated and consistently applied. The absence of prior practice requiring employees to initial the document, coupled with the union’s assertion that no such requirement existed, suggests that the supervisor’s order was not backed by an established rule. Therefore, Martin’s refusal to initial the document, given that her actions were an exercise of her contractual rights, should not be deemed insubordinate.

Furthermore, while management has the right to enforce rules, this must occur in a manner consistent with the collective bargaining agreement and existing practices. Imposing discipline for non-compliance without clear contractual or procedural backing constitutes an unjust application of discipline, violating labor protections.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Considering the above, the arbitration should find that the suspension was not justified under the contract. The company’s disciplinary action against Martin, based solely on her refusal to initial a document not previously mandated, was unwarranted. The appropriate remedy includes rescinding the suspension, removing it from her record, and providing back pay for the three days.

This case underscores the importance of management clearly communicating procedural expectations and ensuring that new rules are consistently applied and properly incorporated into workplace practice. The union’s role as a representative ensures that employees’ rights are protected against arbitrary managerial actions, especially when implementing unwritten procedures.

References

• Bennett, J. F., & Winkler, M. E. (2014). Labor Arbitration: Principles and Practice. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
• Graham, J. W. (2016). Principles of Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations. Routledge.
• Fitzgerald, G. (2012). Labor Law and Collective Bargaining. West Academic Publishing.
• Moore, J. (2018). Arbitrations and Dispute Resolution in the Workplace. Wiley.
• Repo, K., & Dahlquist, J. (2019). Managing Employee Relations: Ensuring Fair Discipline. Harvard Business Review.
• Smith, R. S. (2015). The Role of Unions in Modern Labor Relations. Journal of Labor Studies, 34(2), 123-135.
• Miller, T. (2017). Employee Rights and Management Responsibilities. Stanford University Press.
• Harper, D. (2020). Workplace Discipline and Union Protections. Industrial Relations Journal, 41(3), 215-230.
• Johnson, P. (2019). Effective Labor Dispute Resolution Strategies. Sage Publications.
• Williams, L. (2015). Unwritten Rules and Practices in Industrial Settings. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 36(1), 45-70.

References