In the case study, "the control of Jobs" is talking about the conflict regarding who got the obligation to perform the emergency tasks when emergency arises. The key issues that state in this case was that whether Mr. Lowden had done right or wrong for picked up a new clutch shaft at the premises of Hardchorme Corporation of Canada Limited. Whether Mr. Lowden should be the one who performed the emergency tasks or grievor? Besides, there's also a conflict towards the collective agreement "8:18 b)", about whether the employees could be "available but absent" or "unavailable but present" when emergency occurs. Still, both Mr. Lowden and grivor had their own argument on this case. And the evidence stated that the grivor had been called on other occasions during his off duty hours to make similar deliveries, but somehow he could probably be available. Moreover, even Mr. Lowden was concerned about that the broken clutch shaft might influence employees" one day salary or benefits and picked up himself, still, he fits within the exception 8:18 b). Therefore, the case closed up with Mr. Lowden wasn't prohibited because there's a clear state that grievor was absent. .
However, there are ways of collective agreement to improve. First, state clear about the collective agreement 8:18 b), it should change to both absent and unavailable because there's always an assumption that one might be available but absent or unavailable but present. Second, employers should give the authority to transfer his or her work to other workers, especially this job is during the weekend and the contract doesn't state that supervisor needs to call worker to attend their position during the weekend and get the overtime paid. Third, company should hire more than one person to perform one position without substitution. In order to handle the emergency work, company should train another worker to stand by for back up, so worker has less chance to gain the over paid in this situation.