The Right to Contract Out
1.
The Company bears the burden of proof as the Union brings on charges against it claiming the contract breach (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2011, p. 515). Therefore, the Company is obliged to provide evidence in the form
of documents and other evidence before the court of the jury to prove the legality of its actions. The Union claims to be a plaintiff concerning the potential violation of both the contract code and the employee’s rights within L-1 category. In addition, the Union states that the contracting out decision has been made to disfavor the Union and when the Union was not in the full set.
2.
The case-in-question is naturally a contract interpretation issue. According to the contract law, the good faith implies non-obtainment of benefits from the other party that stands for fairness and integrity of business procedures. Thus, the position of the Union is that the Company breached the contract to pay less to its employees in order to benefit from their low qualifications and post-agreement hiring. However, the
circumstances of the case reveal that the wages alteration were fully arranged with the evaluation committee (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2011, p. 517). Accordingly, the actions of the Company cannot be qualified as the
intentional violation of the “good faith” principle in order to take advantage of the janitor jobs.
Thus, the Company’s intention to diversify L-1 category and 1 category through the wage gap difference cannot be qualified as a breach of the “good faith principle.” At the same time, the Union apparently overlooks the point of the negotiability of wages with the Company in Wages 29.1.4 of Company’s provisions (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2011, p. 517). The conclusion was made both basing on the Company’s code and the positions of the parties.
3.
A company has a legal basis to contract out. However, several regulations should be avoided. Firstly, the company should mark and fix every wage and regulation figure into the contract to avoid disputes and charges. Thus, the current case reveals contract misinterpretation case as a result of a contradiction between the janitor workers’ categories and alleged wage discrimination. Secondly, the company should avoid fraudulent schemes to avoid “good faith” breach principles. If the contract favors one side, it can be naturally observed as “unfair” that might stir the interest of the Union and legal authorities. Thirdly, the company should avoid contract incompliances and breaches to avoid the potential anticipatory breach from the other party. As such breach will naturally cause refund seeking from the employees, it is much better for the company to maintain fair policies in exchange for good cooperation. Accordingly, the company willing to contract out requires cautious documenting …
