HRM 5473 Module 4 Collective Bargaining Agreement and Grievance Analysis Example

Saturday Test Prep Without Extra Pay: Interpreting a Teachers' Contract and Answering a Grievance

Student Name

American College of Education

HRM5473: Employment Law

Module 4 Assignment

Instructor Name

January 31, 2028

Introduction

Lakefront Charter Network's 290 teachers are represented by a union under a three-year collective bargaining agreement that runs through June 2029. In January, the network's academic office told teachers at two schools that they must lead four Saturday morning test-preparation sessions before spring state testing, without additional pay, describing the sessions as part of teachers' professional responsibilities. The union filed a grievance at step one, which the principals denied, and it has now reached step two, my office. This paper interprets the relevant contract articles, considers the legal framework, evaluates both sides' arguments and recommends the network's step-two answer and next steps.

The Legal Framework

The network, a private nonprofit, recognized the union under the National Labor Relations Act, though whether charter schools fall under federal or state labor law depends on how each is created and governed, and labor boards have reached different answers. Under federal labor law, wages and hours are mandatory subjects of bargaining, and the Supreme Court has held that an employer's unilateral change in such terms during bargaining, made without first negotiating, violates the duty to bargain (NLRB v. Katz, 1962). Separately, when a contract provides for arbitration, courts give arbitrators wide deference in interpreting it; the Court has held that an award must be enforced as long as it draws its essence from the agreement (United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp., 1960). The grievance will therefore turn mainly on the contract's language.

The Contract Language

Four articles matter. Article 9, Workday, sets the teacher workday at 7.5 hours, Monday through Friday, and allows up to two additional hours a month for faculty meetings. Article 11, Extra Duty, provides that teachers who perform assigned duties outside the workday, such as after-school tutoring, coaching or Saturday programs, are paid at the contractual hourly rate of $42. Article 4, Management Rights, reserves to the network the right to direct the work force, determine the curriculum and assign duties, except as limited by the agreement. Article 20, Grievance Procedure, defines a grievance as a dispute over the interpretation or application of the agreement and provides four steps ending in binding arbitration.

The Union's Argument

The union argues that Saturday sessions fall outside the workday defined in Article 9, that Article 11 expressly lists Saturday programs as paid extra duty and that the management rights clause yields to these specific provisions because it applies only except as limited by the agreement. It also points to past practice: for the last two years, teachers who led Saturday sessions were paid the extra-duty rate. The union seeks pay at the Article 11 rate for any Saturday session worked and an agreement that future Saturday sessions will be voluntary or paid.

The Network's Argument

The academic office argues that test preparation is part of teachers' core professional responsibilities, that the management rights clause allows the network to assign duties and determine the curriculum and that the sessions are a short, exceptional need tied to state testing. It also notes that the two schools are on a state watch list and that improving test results protects their charters, and therefore teachers' jobs. These are real concerns, but they speak to why the network wants the sessions, not to whether the contract allows them without pay.

Weighing the Arguments

An arbitrator would likely side with the union. General principles of contract interpretation favor specific language over general language, and Article 11 specifically names Saturday programs as paid extra duty, while the management rights clause is expressly limited by the rest of the agreement. Past practice reinforces that reading, since the network paid for Saturday sessions in the two previous years. The Katz principle adds a second risk: changing paid extra duty to unpaid required work, without bargaining, could be treated as an unlawful unilateral change in wages and hours. The network's educational reasons are legitimate but do not override the contract's terms.

Risks of Denying the Grievance

Denying the grievance would move it to step three and then, most likely, to arbitration. The network would pay half of the arbitrator's fees and its own legal costs, often several thousand dollars a day of hearing, and would risk an award ordering back pay for every teacher who worked a Saturday, possibly with a finding that the network violated the contract knowingly. The union could also file an unfair labor practice charge over the unilateral change, adding a second proceeding. Beyond cost, a contested arbitration in the spring testing season would absorb principals' time and harden relations with teachers just as the network needs their extra effort. Each of these risks argues for resolving the dispute at step two.

Recommended Step-Two Answer

I recommend that the network grant the grievance in part. The written answer will state that teachers who lead Saturday sessions will be paid at the Article 11 rate of $42 an hour, including for any session already held, and that participation this spring will be voluntary, with sessions staffed by volunteers first. The answer will also invite the union to discuss, outside the grievance process, how the network can meet test-preparation needs at schools on the state watch list, for example through a paid, voluntary Saturday program with a fixed number of slots. The cost of paying for four three-hour sessions staffed by 20 teachers at each of two schools is about $20,000, far less than the cost of arbitration and a likely adverse award.

The Value of the Relationship

The grievance is also a test of the labor relationship. Freeman and Medoff (1984) argued that unions have two faces: a monopoly face that raises wages and a voice face that gives workers a collective channel to raise problems, which can reduce turnover and improve management practices. A network that treats grievances as fights to win risks losing that benefit. Resolving this one quickly, honoring the contract and using it as an opening for joint problem solving signals that the grievance procedure works, which encourages teachers to raise problems through it rather than leaving.

Lessons for Managers

The case shows that academic leaders made a labor decision without consulting HR or reading the contract. The network will require that any new duty, schedule change or assignment outside the regular workday be reviewed by HR against the agreement before it is announced. Principals and academic staff will sit through an hour-long walk-through of the contract's key articles, and HR will prepare a one-page guide summarizing workday, extra-duty and leave provisions. Changes the network wants, such as more flexibility for test preparation, belong at the bargaining table when the contract is renegotiated, not in a memo.

Conclusion

Read together, the agreement's workday, extra-duty and management rights articles support the union's position, and past practice and the duty to bargain over wages and hours strengthen it. The network should grant the grievance in part, pay for Saturday work, make participation voluntary and invite the union to discuss test preparation jointly. Doing so avoids arbitration, honors the contract and uses the grievance process as the voice channel it is meant to be.

References

Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1984). What do unions do? Basic Books.

NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962).

United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960).