Which Is the Best Example of the Seniority Rule

Example: Company P signed collective agreements with Union Q and Union M in 1958. The agreement with Q covered all employees in the maintenance department, while the agreement with M covered all employees in the motor vehicle department. Each agreement created a seniority system for departmental employees; However, each agreement provided that employees could move from one department to another and retain all seniority acquired in the previous department. In 1958, all employees in both departments were men. By 1968, however, some women had found employment in the maintenance department; The motor vehicle department was still exclusively male. The agreements expired in 1968. Both were renegotiated to avoid maintaining seniority in interdepartmental transfers. This discouraged transfers, locked women into the maintenance department, and tended to keep the motor vehicle department exclusively male. If Company P`s recruitment practices, which resulted in the motor vehicle division remaining exclusively male, were or continued to be discriminatory and the renegotiated systems continued to be discriminatory, this change in the system would indicate a discriminatory intent to maintain the system. A progression line (LOP) consists of a chain of jobs through which an employee can usually gradually move from the entry-level job to the most skilled job.

A progression line is usually based on seniority order as indicated on a seniority list or route. If advancement in the line is based on seniority within the same line, the LOP becomes part of the seniority system. Miller v. Continental Can Co., 544 F. Supp. 210, 25 EPD ¶ 31,543 (S.D. Ga. 1981). Example 2 – In the third example in paragraph 616.11(b), Acme Aviation`s downtown plant is predominantly black, while the suburban plant is predominantly white.

This was caused by Acme`s discriminatory allocation and hiring practices in the past. Acme stopped hiring and assigning employees based on race several years ago and now hires blacks and whites at both plants. This led to a very small increase in the number of blacks working in the suburban factory, mostly new hires. However, plant-wide seniority systems have discouraged downtown factory workers from moving to higher-paying suburban utilities, perpetuating previous discrimination. (1) Discrimination before the act, the system is in good faith – If the discriminatory act before the 2. July 1965 (date of entry into force of Title VII) and was maintained by a seniority regime, the problem is CDP if EOS finds that the seniority regime is in good faith as explained in Articles 616.19 to 616.23. Commission Decision No. 81-3, CCH Employment Practice Guide ¶ 6,761. These situations are covered by the Supreme Court`s decisions in Teamsters v. U.S.

and American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson and seniority plans are protected by section 703(h). EOS should recommend LOD without reason. However, an exception may arise if an indictment alleges that the dismissal perpetuates discrimination in the past. (See § 616.26 for other dismissals.) Example: The two unions involved in the initial organization of the employer each signed a separate collective agreement with this collective agreement with separate but similar seniority schemes. At the time of the first organizational efforts, the bargaining unit represented by Union #1 was predominantly white, but had 24 black carpenters. The unit represented by Union #2 was composed of both black and white workers. Prior to the signing of any collective agreement, union #1 reached an “agreement” with union #2 of the union`s 24 black carpenters for two of the white workers in union #2.

One result was that carpenters in some departments were white and represented by Union #1; The carpenters of the other departments were black and represented by Union #2. Another result was that Union #1 became an all-white bargaining unit; Union #2, on the other hand, remained racially mixed, albeit with separate departments. This is evidence of the intention to promote and perpetuate discrimination on the part of Union #1, which has become purely white and would affect the collective agreement negotiated by the union and the seniority system. In the absence of other evidence, EU Agreement #2 to the exchange does not indicate a discriminatory motivation on its part. See Pullman Standard v.