For Phyllis Young only.Answer the Question as Described. It is due in 24 hours.

The participation program enjoys widespread support among workers throughout the plant, and in particular, among workers in the Finishing Department.  The employees in the Finishing Department are a close-knit group whose friendship extends to after work activities.  These employees and other workers in the plant are displeased over management's history of speed-ups, arbitrary supervision, and delayed grievances.  They are also displeased with the union to some extent.  Many workers are upset by the union's apparent lack of aggressiveness in pursuing grievances for non-union employees.  New equipment was recently installed in the main production area.  No layoffs have occurred during the installation and implementation period.  However, employees throughout the plant are concerned about possible layoffs in the future.

I.C.C.'s contract with the W.E.U. recognizes the W.E.U. as the sole representative of all production and maintenance employees in the plant.  The contract also includes provisions for a standard grievance procedure, under which disciplinary actions are grievable issues.  Seventy-two percent of the workers in the plant are union members; the rest pay a "fair-share" fee to the union to cover the costs of negotiations, grievances, etc., since the union is required by law to represent the entire bargaining unit.  In the Finishing Department, seven of the ten workers are union members.

Although the company has tried to decertify the union twice during the last ten years, relations have been slowly improving.  Current relations are cool, but functional.  Workers throughout the plant have repeatedly complained of the arbitrary decisions made by their supervisors, but there have been no work stoppages or other direct actions.

THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEM

Ben Mason was late to work for three straight days.  Ben is a skilled worker in the Finishing Department and his tardiness prevented his shift from beginning operations (the shift starts at 7:00 a.m.).  On the first day he was ten minutes late, on the second day he was twenty minutes late, and on the third day he was six minutes late.  Mason is considered a good employee, but has five previous warnings for tardiness and two for insubordination in his file (collected over the four years he has been employed at the plant).

On the second day Mason was warned by the departmental supervisor not to come in late again or he would be disciplined.  Mason stated that he would try, but that he had a newborn at home that kept him awake at nights.  On the third day Mason was warned that he would be suspended if he was late again, to which he responded by cursing the supervisor.  The supervisor warned him that he was being insubordinate, and that that too was subject to disciplinary action.  Upon arriving at work the next morning, Mason was given a six-month suspension without pay by the departmental supervisor for tardiness.  Mason asked his union representative to file a grievance over his suspension (Ben is not a union member).  The representative later informed him that the union would not file the grievance.  The union felt that since Mason had been properly warned by the supervisor that a grievance had a very low likelihood of success.  Mason decided not to file the grievance himself, but complained of the matter to his co-workers.  They unanimously decided to call a participation program meeting to discuss the issue.  The workers maintain that since they are to make decisions relative to their conditions of employment, they should be allowed to discipline the members of their group.  And now, let us meet and try to resolve this issue.

Cases adapted from: Hodson, R. and Sullivan, T. (2012). The social organization of work. 1st ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub. Co.