Issue in the case Ronald Petrie was laid off from the company on March 20, 1997 and from the beginning of May that year, the remaining employees of the Glass department were made to work over-time and at the same time; a few other employees from different departments were transferred to the Glass department. The Union’s contention is that the management was wrong in not making a recall for Petrie when it realized in the beginning of May that there can be an opening for a job in the Glass department, while the management argues that it is their right to decide whether the opening was required or not. The issue in the case is whether the management has violated the labor agreement by discharging Petrie and then putting other Glass department workers on overtime and transferring people from other classifications to this department, and not considering making a recall to Petrie for this duration of time. Union’s position The union’s position can be described as follows: (1) the labor agreement clearly tells that if employees are laid-off from work as a result of reduction in workforce, and an opening occurs in the classification they were working for, then they will be recalled to that classification in order of seniority provided the concerned employee is physically able to return to work and perform in a satisfactory manner, (2) looking at the overtime and temporary transfer hours worked for the Glass department, it becomes clear that there was a an opening in the glass room, (3) Petrie was the senior glass room worker and was skilled enough to perform satisfactorily the bell jar or anode bomber work assigned to the glass room in the spring and summer months of 1997 and thus, this work handled by employees working overtime and on temporary transfer, should have been returned to this opening for which Petrie was eligible, (4) a very strong evidence for the opening