This case involved the addition of job duties to a bargaining unit position and whether management could make the assignment without negotiating with the Union. The Arbitrator confirmed that this was within management's right.

Grievant was discharged for failing to pass qualifications testing. The arbitration was significant because it established that the testing process is reasonable, fair, and calculated to determine the qualifications of the individual. Moreover, the grading process was also determined to be fair. The decision is significant in that challenges to the process are unlikely.

This case involved the Company's right to post jobs and fill positions based upon qualifications, instead of straight seniority. The Company had never exercised the right in over 50 years at the facility. The arbitrator held that "deciding when a position is open, at what level to fill an open position, establishing and determining position qualifications and determining who is qualified are all traditional and recognized functions of management. * * * Mere non-use of a right does not entail a loss of it."

In this case, the Union grieved the rotation of workers through different assignments at the Lima facility, contending that the definition of schedule under the contract included days and hours of work, as well as the work assignment. The Union's position was that a two-week rotation had to be followed, which meant that the Company would have to call in workers on overtime to cover shifts if the rotation put an employee in a position for which they were not yet qualified (eg. boilerhouse). The Arbitrator confirmed the Company's position and held that the schedule is limited to the days and hours of work. The Company's management rights clause allowed the Company to change employees' rotation through assignments, which significantly reduced the Company's overtime costs.

When an international technology company sought counsel on the impact of new federal labor laws, they turned to Dinsmore. We organized and conducted a panel discussion, featuring former representatives from the National Labor Relations Board and Dinsmore attorneys, focused on addressing current and pressing issues with regard to federal labor law, including social media, collective bargaining and regulations intended to accelerate elections. The training session educated and prepared members of the client’s human resources and labor personnel on the potential impact of relevant laws and initiatives, as well as strategies for effective compliance.

NLRB lawfully delegated power to seek 29 U.S.C.S. § 160(j) injunctions to its General Counsel and usual four-factor equitable test applied to determine if grant of § 106 (j) injunctive relief was just and proper. District court did not abuse its discretion in awarding limited injunctive relief to NLRB, nor in denying NLRB further injunctive relief.

Successfully defended ULP over refusal to execute CBA and whether agreement was reached.

Successfully defended ULP charge alleging unilateral changes to CBA where Union alleged failure to bargain changes.

Successfully defended company against ULP charge stemming from work rule changes.