Analyze how each side interprets the meaning of this contract clause. Whose position is more persuasive? Why?In 1947, Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act (a “portal is a doorway). This law said that an employer is not liable to pay workers for the time they spend traveling to work (e.g. an hour-long commute). It also excludes from compensable time, “activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to the principle activity or activities that an employee is employed to perform, which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principle activity or activities. 4:21 PM Sun Mar 3|||=BCASE STUDY8-4JTI decided to pass one-half of the safety bonuspayment (50 cents) on to its truck drivers and keepthe remaining 50 cents to fund certain safety equip-ment purchases and the company's annual Christmasparty. Bob Dale learned from talking to drivers at otherfirms employed by ASC that they were receiving thefull $1 bonus from their employers. This upset Dale,who thought his employer (JTI) should also be givingdrivers the full $1 per hour bonus payment. Dale dis-cussed his complaint with several other employees,including Sam Brady.●●●●On December 9, employee Dale told Brady that hewas on his way to see Phil Cook, ASC’s transportationmanager at the plant where both Brady and Dale wereassigned. Brady said he would accompany Dale to themeeting as he didn't want to miss any of the fireworks.At the meeting, Dale explained to Cook his complaintabout JTI not paying its drivers the full $1 bonusamount. Cook replied that essentially this was not adecision over which he had any control, and any com-plaints should be delivered directly to JTI managers,not ASC. The meeting ended after about 15 minutes,and Dale and Brady exited Cook's office. Cook thentelephoned R. C. Ridley, the JTI terminal managerwho supervised Dale and Brady, and explained tohim the nature of the conversation Cook had engagedin with Dale in Brady's presence.On December 19, Ridley, accompanied by a securityguard, escorted Dale from the ASC property, explainingthat he was being removed because "they believed thathe was trying get a union started because he had talkedto Cook." Ridley told Dale that ASC had barred Dalefrom its property. Dale responded that he was not tryingto start a union and had never even spoken to anyoneabout doing so. Ridley stated the company would haveto investigate the matter further.The Steelworkers' union had a new collective bargain-ing agreement with the steel manufacturer that said,“Employees shall be paid for donning and removingprotective gear prior to beginning work and at theend of the workday, provided it constitutes more thana de minimus activity." Soon after the agreement wasratified, the union filed a grievance, charging that1.0xวCHAPTER 8On that same date (December 19), Ridley, accom-panied by a security guard, also escorted Brady fromthe ASC property. Ridley told Brady he was beingremoved from the property because he had been pres-ent when Dale met with Cook about the safety bonusissue. Brady indicated that he had not known inadvance the specific nature of the statements thatDale planned to make that day in Cook's office.QAAAdministrative Issues 435On December 27, Ridley informed Dale that hewas being terminated in the best interest of the com-pany. Dale's written termination notice stated that hewas terminated because he was "not able to function onASC property." Ridley also informed Brady on thesame date that he too was terminated because ASCdid not want him back on its property. Brady's writtentermination notice stated the reason for terminationwas "not able to function on ASC property." Bradyand Dale subsequently filed an unfair labor practicewith the NLRB, alleging that JTI's discharge actionrepresented unlawful discrimination against themunder the LMRA, as amended."Donning Safety Equipment?" or "ChangingClothes?"Questions1. Was the discharge of Dale and Brady a violation ofSection 8(a)(1) and (3) of the LMRA? If so, whatshould be the appropriate remedy?2. Was the decision by JTI to award only half of thesafety bonus money available to its truck drivers alawful employer decision?3. If you had been advising JTI on the safety bonusissue, would you have recommended the companyretain half the bonus money for the purposesdescribed by the company (i.e., buy safety equip-ment and pay for the annual Christmas party)? Whyor why not?management was not abiding by the “donning" con-tract clause.Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202сPosition of the Union:Under the new contract, management is supposed topay workers for putting on and taking off personal pro-tective equipment (PPE). Working in a mill withx435/774:●●● 4:21 PM Sun Mar 3|||B436PART 2 The Bargaining Process and Outcomesmolten steel is dangerous and requires that workerswear several pieces of PPE. These include the followingspecial flame-retardant articles: a jacket, a pair of pants,a "snood" (a hood with neck protection), “wristlets,"work gloves, and leggings. Other types of PPE includethe following: a hardhat, special steel-toe boots, safetyglasses, earplugs, and a respirator (worn occasionally,as needed). Workers would not normally wear thesetypes of PPE except for the hazards of the job. Indeed,these forms of PPE are expected by the OccupationalHealth and Safety Administration. Thus, donning PPEis an integral part of the day's work activities. The col-lective bargaining agreement requires that bargainingunit employees be paid for putting PPE on at thestart of the workday and taking it off at the end ofthe workday. This equates to approximately 15 minutestotal per worker per day. Further, after donning theirPPE, the workers must walk (or ride a shuttle bus)approximately 10-15 minutes from the locker roomto their specific work stations in the sprawling 4000-acre work site. This time, too, is an integral part of theworkday and should be compensated.Position of the Company:Most of the articles mentioned in the Union's list arenot PPE at all. They are “clothing." The company is notobligated to pay for people to change clothes, even ifthey normally do it in a locker room on the company'spremises. Hard hats are “hats"; steel-toe boots are"boots." Common sense indicates that these are"clothes" and not special PPE. The only items that con-stitute PPE are safety glasses, earplugs, and the respira-tor (which is not always worn). Putting on safetyglasses and earplugs takes less than 20 seconds. Thus,they fall under the "de minimus activity” exceptionmentioned in the contract. Also, there is no history ofmaking such payments in the 59 years of collective●●●●1.0x วabargaining at this plant. Thus, we are not obligated topay for changing time. Nor are we obligated to pay forthe time spent walking to the appropriate work sta-tions. If we were required to do that, then the slowest,laziest workers would earn more pay by walking at amore leisurely pace, thereby undermining employeediscipline and potentially the operation of the millitself.Questions1. Analyze how each side interprets the meaning ofthis contract clause. Whose position is more per-suasive? Why?2 AA2. In 1947, Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act (a"portal" is a doorway; 61 Stat. 84, as amended, 29U.S. C. $251 et seq. (2006 ed. and Supp. V). §251(a).This law said that an employer is not liable to payworkers for time they spend traveling to work (e.g.,an hour-long commute). It also excludes from com-pensable time, “activities which are preliminary to orpostliminary to [the] principal activity or activities[th an employee is employed to perform], whichoccur either prior to the time on any particularworkday at which such employee commences, orsubsequent to the time on any particular workday atwhich he ceases, such principal activity or activities."61 Stat. 87, 29 U. S. C. §254(a)(2).Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202Further, in 1949, Congress amended the Fair LaborStandards Act (which regulates overtime) to read, “[Indetermining] the hours for which an employee isemployed, there shall be excluded any time spent inchanging clothes or washing at the beginning or end ofeach workday.” 63 Stat. 911, 29 U. S. C. §203(0). Thislaw excluded "changing clothes" from compensabletime, but it also specifically allowed collective bar-gaining agreements to specify that such time be paid.Analyze the case in light of these two relevant laws.сx436/774●●●

Question

Analyze how each side interprets the meaning of this contract clause.  Whose position is more persuasive?  Why?In 1947, Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act (a “portal is a doorway).  This law said that an employer is not liable to pay workers for the time they spend traveling to work (e.g. an hour-long commute).  It also excludes from compensable time, “activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to the principle activity or activities that an employee is employed to perform, which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principle activity or activities. 4:21 PM Sun Mar 3|||=BCASE STUDY8-4JTI decided to pass one-half of the safety bonuspayment (50 cents) on to its truck drivers and keepthe remaining 50 cents to fund certain safety equip-ment purchases and the company's annual Christmasparty. Bob Dale learned from talking to drivers at otherfirms employed by ASC that they were receiving thefull $1 bonus from their employers. This upset Dale,who thought his employer (JTI) should also be givingdrivers the full $1 per hour bonus payment. Dale dis-cussed his complaint with several other employees,including Sam Brady.●●●●On December 9, employee Dale told Brady that hewas on his way to see Phil Cook, ASC’s transportationmanager at the plant where both Brady and Dale wereassigned. Brady said he would accompany Dale to themeeting as he didn't want to miss any of the fireworks.At the meeting, Dale explained to Cook his complaintabout JTI not paying its drivers the full $1 bonusamount. Cook replied that essentially this was not adecision over which he had any control, and any com-plaints should be delivered directly to JTI managers,not ASC. The meeting ended after about 15 minutes,and Dale and Brady exited Cook's office. Cook thentelephoned R. C. Ridley, the JTI terminal managerwho supervised Dale and Brady, and explained tohim the nature of the conversation Cook had engagedin with Dale in Brady's presence.On December 19, Ridley, accompanied by a securityguard, escorted Dale from the ASC property, explainingthat he was being removed because &#34;they believed thathe was trying get a union started because he had talkedto Cook.&#34; Ridley told Dale that ASC had barred Dalefrom its property. Dale responded that he was not tryingto start a union and had never even spoken to anyoneabout doing so. Ridley stated the company would haveto investigate the matter further.The Steelworkers' union had a new collective bargain-ing agreement with the steel manufacturer that said,“Employees shall be paid for donning and removingprotective gear prior to beginning work and at theend of the workday, provided it constitutes more thana de minimus activity.&#34; Soon after the agreement wasratified, the union filed a grievance, charging that1.0xวCHAPTER 8On that same date (December 19), Ridley, accom-panied by a security guard, also escorted Brady fromthe ASC property. Ridley told Brady he was beingremoved from the property because he had been pres-ent when Dale met with Cook about the safety bonusissue. Brady indicated that he had not known inadvance the specific nature of the statements thatDale planned to make that day in Cook's office.QAAAdministrative Issues 435On December 27, Ridley informed Dale that hewas being terminated in the best interest of the com-pany. Dale's written termination notice stated that hewas terminated because he was &#34;not able to function onASC property.&#34; Ridley also informed Brady on thesame date that he too was terminated because ASCdid not want him back on its property. Brady's writtentermination notice stated the reason for terminationwas &#34;not able to function on ASC property.&#34; Bradyand Dale subsequently filed an unfair labor practicewith the NLRB, alleging that JTI's discharge actionrepresented unlawful discrimination against themunder the LMRA, as amended.&#34;Donning Safety Equipment?&#34; or &#34;ChangingClothes?&#34;Questions1. Was the discharge of Dale and Brady a violation ofSection 8(a)(1) and (3) of the LMRA? If so, whatshould be the appropriate remedy?2. Was the decision by JTI to award only half of thesafety bonus money available to its truck drivers alawful employer decision?3. If you had been advising JTI on the safety bonusissue, would you have recommended the companyretain half the bonus money for the purposesdescribed by the company (i.e., buy safety equip-ment and pay for the annual Christmas party)? Whyor why not?management was not abiding by the “donning&#34; con-tract clause.Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202сPosition of the Union:Under the new contract, management is supposed topay workers for putting on and taking off personal pro-tective equipment (PPE). Working in a mill withx435/774>:●●● 4:21 PM Sun Mar 3|||B436PART 2 The Bargaining Process and Outcomesmolten steel is dangerous and requires that workerswear several pieces of PPE. These include the followingspecial flame-retardant articles: a jacket, a pair of pants,a &#34;snood&#34; (a hood with neck protection), “wristlets,&#34;work gloves, and leggings. Other types of PPE includethe following: a hardhat, special steel-toe boots, safetyglasses, earplugs, and a respirator (worn occasionally,as needed). Workers would not normally wear thesetypes of PPE except for the hazards of the job. Indeed,these forms of PPE are expected by the OccupationalHealth and Safety Administration. Thus, donning PPEis an integral part of the day's work activities. The col-lective bargaining agreement requires that bargainingunit employees be paid for putting PPE on at thestart of the workday and taking it off at the end ofthe workday. This equates to approximately 15 minutestotal per worker per day. Further, after donning theirPPE, the workers must walk (or ride a shuttle bus)approximately 10-15 minutes from the locker roomto their specific work stations in the sprawling 4000-acre work site. This time, too, is an integral part of theworkday and should be compensated.Position of the Company:Most of the articles mentioned in the Union's list arenot PPE at all. They are “clothing.&#34; The company is notobligated to pay for people to change clothes, even ifthey normally do it in a locker room on the company'spremises. Hard hats are “hats&#34;; steel-toe boots are&#34;boots.&#34; Common sense indicates that these are&#34;clothes&#34; and not special PPE. The only items that con-stitute PPE are safety glasses, earplugs, and the respira-tor (which is not always worn). Putting on safetyglasses and earplugs takes less than 20 seconds. Thus,they fall under the &#34;de minimus activity” exceptionmentioned in the contract. Also, there is no history ofmaking such payments in the 59 years of collective●●●●1.0x วabargaining at this plant. Thus, we are not obligated topay for changing time. Nor are we obligated to pay forthe time spent walking to the appropriate work sta-tions. If we were required to do that, then the slowest,laziest workers would earn more pay by walking at amore leisurely pace, thereby undermining employeediscipline and potentially the operation of the millitself.Questions1. Analyze how each side interprets the meaning ofthis contract clause. Whose position is more per-suasive? Why?2 AA2. In 1947, Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act (a&#34;portal&#34; is a doorway; 61 Stat. 84, as amended, 29U.S. C. $251 et seq. (2006 ed. and Supp. V). §251(a).This law said that an employer is not liable to payworkers for time they spend traveling to work (e.g.,an hour-long commute). It also excludes from com-pensable time, “activities which are preliminary to orpostliminary to [the] principal activity or activities[th an employee is employed to perform], whichoccur either prior to the time on any particularworkday at which such employee commences, orsubsequent to the time on any particular workday atwhich he ceases, such principal activity or activities.&#34;61 Stat. 87, 29 U. S. C. §254(a)(2).Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-202Further, in 1949, Congress amended the Fair LaborStandards Act (which regulates overtime) to read, “[Indetermining] the hours for which an employee isemployed, there shall be excluded any time spent inchanging clothes or washing at the beginning or end ofeach workday.” 63 Stat. 911, 29 U. S. C. §203(0). Thislaw excluded &#34;changing clothes&#34; from compensabletime, but it also specifically allowed collective bar-gaining agreements to specify that such time be paid.Analyze the case in light of these two relevant laws.сx436/774>●●●

Accepted Answer

The case involves a dispute between a company (referred to as "the Company") and a union…