Union contract, dental plan and beer.

FAIR WARNING: If you object to my posts or are upset by on-topic content, then why don't you just skip on down to the next message instead of complaining at me.

I was watching "Last exit to Springfield" and I noticed a problem at the first union meeting: One of the additions to the contract obviously was the keg of beer in exchange for the dental plan. The beer was provided at the meeting, and presumably the union consumed it since we see glasses full of beer. Now, presuming that the prior contract was still in effect at that point and also that it contained a provision agreeing that there will not be a strike, it seems that an arbitration would favor Burns since there was a strike at the second meeting.

I'm not a lawyer, so I ask, if anyone here is, which party would receive award if there were to be a grievance filed? Burns supplied the beer BEFORE the contract was signed, so if the prior contract did NOT prohibit strikes then I believe the union would win. Also, would there be any difference at all depending on whether the beer was consumed or not? Could Burns be penalized for presuming that the union would accept his terms, thus supplying the beer?

All this presumes that the strike took place before the termination date of the prior contract.

Anyway, thanks for helping me sort all this out.

XINO

Xino Kiner wrote:

What a wonderful, on-topic, but anal post.

of

Honestly, BC, the history and traditions of a.t.s. DEMAND "anality". :-) or to use a cognate, "analysis" or for its members to be "analytic".

Have you ever visited http://www.snpp.com? Such analysis!!!

but thanks for the compliment "wonderful" anyway.

XINO

Offhand (haven't seen the episode in a while), I think consumption of the beer was implicit acceptance of the new contract, since it was the perquisette. But I don't know that any contract can "prohibit" a strike, as a strike is by definition a going-against of the employer, even in the cases where workers strike because they *don't* have a contract.

I don't know where this "award" stuff is coming from, but the grievance would likely have Burns win, as the union accepts and taps the keg but then decides to breach the contract they've entered into. Of course, Burns' deception would likely nullify the contract anyway, so the most he'd get would be money for the cost of the beer.

would

decides

would

for the

Thanks for the input, it is helpful, but I must ask you to clarify.. when you say "contract" do you mean the existing contract or the contract being negotiated. (the new contract) My guess is that you meant "the new contract" despite that it had not yet become official, other than of course the union had decided to tap the beer, suggesting acceptance.

Also, as a side note, as I understand that most labor agreements contain a provision in which there is to be no strike during the term of the contract. That is, if there is to be a strike at all, it is to be at the "current" contract's termination, at which point normally a new contract is being negotiated. (as was the case in this episode)

XINO

"Xino Kiner" wrote in message news:[email]...

course

contract.

Why do you need to go into all of this to get enjoyment from the show? Or are you just trying to impress everybody by trying to look like you're terribly intellectual? Or are you simply (as I've seen it stated before) "The James Bond of trolls" ?

And before you come back with your "I put a warning up the top not to read my post" blah blah BS, let me just say that you putting your little disclaimer up the top, only serves as making us want to read your ramblings even more. It's almost like a dare then! Because we know it's gonna be some anal crap like your sine wave arguement.

I notice you never throw any funny one liners in or contribute to any normal disscussion. Do you think you're above us all?

"Mark Wilson"

BECAUSE THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FRIGGIN' SHOW!!!

ramblings

some

Yet you read it anyway. It's not my fault that YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY trying to annoy yourself and then blame it on me.

normal

You gotta be joking. Leave me alone.

XINO

"Xino Kiner" wrote in message news:[email]...

What is the whole point of the show? To become as Anal as is humanly possible. I don't think that's the point at all.

I'm not trying to intentionally annoy myself at all. I find you quite amusing actually. I was meerly pointing out that you telling people not to read your post etc. actually has the opposite effect to what you intended.

No. <pats Xino's head for good luck> <tickles Xino's belly to hear his girlish laugh>

I'm beginning to think that Xino Kiner is not the brilliant ng poster I thought he was.

Who cares about the beer as long as the fake vomit factory has electricity!

Space Mvsevm

I'm beginning to think that Xino Kiner is not the brilliant ng poster I thought he was.

Who cares about the beer as long as the fake vomit factory has electricity!

Space Mvsevm

"Xino Anal" wrote in message news:[email]...

As BC said. Anal.

"Xino Kiner" wrote in message news:[email]...

the

Dental plan!

"Uniblab" wrote in message news:4169ca29$[email]...

Lisa needs new braces

"Funky" wrote in message news:ckcp44$1qj$[email]...

D'oh.

The beer was just a bribe to get them to vote for the new contract, not a "part" of the new contract.

"Alan Hamilton"

Actually, no it wasn't. Obviously though that's what Burns was trying to do, but in actuality it was clearly stated at the meeting that the beer was in exchange for the dental plan.

When labor agreements are negotiated, in order for one party to receive something new there almost always is an exchange of some sort. In the case, the beer for the dental plan.

Maybe someone or some people brought the beer to the meeting just for the heck of it. And it has nothing to do with the existing contract or the new contract or the part of the 1st part or the party of the 2nd part, and so on. There, I just used more legal mumbo-jumbo that Lionel Hutz ever did.

Phil Hartman, G-d bless him, should have added one more character to his "Anal Retentive" series of continuing characters on Saturday Night Live. "The Anal-Retentive Simpsons News Group Poster".

Everybody in the U-S-A Hates his stupid neighbor Xino Kiner is his name And he's annoying

Space Mvsevm

"Aaron Hirshberg" wrote in message news:[email]...

the

the

of

that

not be

a

BEFORE

strikes

at

of

Does William Shatner have any plans to cover that song?

"Lord Moose" wrote in message news:...

If so, I'll have to fire CBG's phaser at him.

I teach labor law, but let me stress that I'm only doing this because I'm bored--I know this guy is basically trolling, albeit in a fairly original way. Plus, this is one of my very favorite episodes of "The Simpsons").

But we don't know that Burns provided it, do we? And Burns could have possibly provided it as a "one time only" bargaining tactic--"see how good things can be"? So what's the legal relevance?

and presumably the union consumed it since we see glasses full

Legally irrelevant.

Now, presuming that the prior contract was still in effect at

Why? Negotiations can continue after a labor contract has expired and before a new one is reached.

and also that it contained a provision agreeing that there will

It's likely that the contract did contain such a clause, as "no-strike/no lockout" clauses are common (although such clauses can't waive rights to certain types of strikes). But again, there's no evidence that contract was still in effect.

it seems that an arbitration would favor Burns since there was

Again, the likely scenario is that the first contract expired, but they are still negotiating.

If the union struck in violation of a no-strike clause, while Burns could technically arbitrate the matter, it's more likely he would go to court and get an injunction against the strike first.

As a lawyer, I say, see above.

Burns supplied the beer

Nothing prevents Burns from providing beer even if there is no contract formally requiring him to do so.

so if the prior contract did NOT prohibit

It's unlikely that a contract would not have a no-strike/no lockout clause. But again, the contract probably isn't in effect.

Also, would there be any difference

No.

Could Burns be

Not if we're just talking about beer at one meeting--and again, we don't know for sure that Burns provided said beer.

Right, which is probably a faulty assumption. Because if there was a contract with a no-strike clause in effect, and the union struck over beer or a dental plan, that strike would violate the contract. And I'm sure Burns's lawyers would know that and would have gotten an injunction if that were the case. There's no mention of an injunction in the show, so it's probably best to assume the prior contract had expired.

No problem. You just allowed me to avoid real work for a little while.--Joe