Ironsteel Labor Relations Case Analysis: HR Director's Perspective

This assignment presents a labor relations case study involving Ironsteel and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Union). The case details a strike resulting from unsuccessful negotiations over salary, benefits, and health insurance. Ironsteel hired strike replacements and, after a settlement, faced grievances from both the replacements and returning strikers. As the Human Resources Director, the student must analyze the legality of the strike, the arguments of the involved parties (strike replacements, the Union, and Ironsteel), and the implications of the settlement agreement. The analysis requires applying concepts such as just cause, disciplinary procedures, collective bargaining, and seniority to determine the legality of terminations, the validity of grievances, and the potential outcomes of the dispute, referencing specific statutory provisions and terms covered in the course. The assignment aims to assess the student's understanding of labor law and their ability to apply it to a real-world scenario.

Part C – Short Answer (This section is worth 10% of the test grade. (Each answer is worth 5 points.)
Please write only 1 short paragraph to answer each question).
1. Why has management’s right to subcontract work been the subject of many grievances?
2. Discuss how disciplinary procedures, in conjunction with just cause, affect the labor–
management relationship.
Part D – Case Analysis. (This section is worth 50% of the test grade.)
Use the terms and concepts covered in the course to analyze this case. Your essay should be between
250 and 500 concisely written words.
Ironsteel and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (“Union”) were parties
to a collective bargaining agreement expiring May 31, 2011 that covered approximately 250 Ironsteel
employees at Ironsteel's North Chicago plant. The Union and Ironsteel began negotiations in March
hoping to reach an agreement before the expiration date of May 31st. The negotiations were
unsuccessful; the parties were at an impasse. Specifically, the parties could not reach agreement on
issues surrounding salary, benefits, and health insurance payments. As a result of the parties' failure to
negotiate a new agreement, the Union went out on strike on June 1, 2011. In response to the Union's
strike, Ironsteel hired 100 strike replacements, 90 of whom were assigned to Ironsteel's entry level
classifications.
During the final stages of the strike Ironsteel and the Union negotiated over the conditions under which
the strikers might return to work. The parties agreed to the following language as part of a Strike
Settlement Agreement:
"The strike against Ironsteel, Inc. by the Company's employees who are members of the Union is
terminated as of the date of this Agreement, July 15, 2011. Striking employees shall be returned
to work to openings in the classifications occupied by the employee on May 31, 2011, in
accordance with their respective seniority. The recall provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement shall determine the order of return to work."
In addition to the above agreed upon language, Ironsteel proposed that the Strike Settlement
Agreement contain the following section (Paragraph 2), to which the Union objected:
"2. Jobs filled by employees hired by the Company on or after June 1, 2011 as strike
replacements (new hires) for striking employees shall not be considered vacancies to which
returning strikers shall be returned unless and until such jobs are vacated by the strike
replacements. Such new hires shall not be bumped or displaced by the return of strikers. Such
newly hired employees shall become members of the Union as stated in the collective
bargaining agreement and their respective seniority shall be measured from their individual hire
date.
Because the parties did not agree to Ironsteel's proposal concerning Paragraph 2, the parties
determined that while Paragraph 2 would physically remain in the printed Agreement, the following
marginal notation would be added reflecting the parties' failure to agree to this particular provision. This
marginal note read:
"Paragraph 2 represents the position of the Company and is not agreed to by the Union or
waived by the Company."

A new collective bargaining agreement was signed by Ironsteel and the Union on July 15th, the same day
the parties signed the Strike Settlement Agreement.
Despite the language of Paragraph 2, Ironsteel fired 10 of the strike replacements on July 17th. The 10
fired strike replacements had paid their union dues. To fill these 10 jobs, Ironsteel brought back 10
strikers in accordance with the recall provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. The 10 strike
replacements filed a grievance alleging that their terminations were illegal.
In addition, Ironsteel fired the 12 highest paid strikers. The company thought this would be a good way
to save money because if the 12 highly paid strikers returned, they would have retained their seniority
and thus, their pay.
You’re the Human Resources Director for Ironsteel and have been charged with addressing the various
issues presented by these facts. Your response should minimally respond to the following questions:
1. Was the strike legal?
2. What are the arguments that the 10 strike replacements will make? Were their
terminations legal? Will the Union represent the 10 strike replacements? Are their
grievances permitted? What is Ironsteel’s argument in rebuttal?
3. What are the arguments that the Union will make on behalf of the 12 highest paid
strikers? Were their terminations legal? What is Ironsteel’s argument in rebuttal?
Use the specific statutory provisions, terms and concepts covered in this course to support your analysis.