(1) John Jones is a member of a union collective bargaining unit, and his conditions of work are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. However, he dislikes unions because they seem to him to support the political party he hates. Since he lives in a “right-to-work” state (Florida) he is not required to pay union dues or even “agency fees” that would pay for the cost of the union’s bargaining and representation activities. So, he pays nothing, even though he is protected by the union contract concerning his pay and working conditions.

John and his supervisor, Steve Smith, are very close friends. They often go out for drinks together after work. In the course of such after-hours drinking, Steve agrees to always give John the first chance at overtime work at 1½ times normal pay, on Saturdays. In exchange, John promises Steve that he will report to him on who are the strongest union supporters in the unit, people he refers to as “union red hots” who are always interfering and causing trouble.

The union contract specifies that all employees in John’s unit will get equal access to overtime; overtime is to rotate through the entire unit, until everyone has had equal access. After John and Steve’s conversation, John always gets every overtime opportunity, unlike the others. And John regularly reports in secret to Steve about union activities and union activists.

What legal issues do you see here? Whatever you find or don’t find, explain why you think whatever you think.

(2) An employer rejects all union proposals in collective bargaining sessions, calling them “out of the question.” Instead of offering counterproposals, the employer sticks with his original proposals, all of which would worsen the condition of the workers compared to their present circumstances. By way of explanation, the employer only notes that “unions can make your situation worse, as well as better. I told you that a long time ago.”

Is this good faith bargaining, or not? Explain your answer, whatever it is.

(3) In negotiations, the two sides have reached agreement except for a few issues. The union is demanding an increase of 3% to retirement benefits being paid to those who are retired from the company. The employer is demanding that the union waive its right to demand bargaining over new policies the company may adopt, such as a new drug testing policy. They are also at odds over whether the employer should pay for a dental plan, and if so, how much.

If all the issues except the three above are settled, can either side declare impasse? Carefully explaining the difference between mandatory and permissive bargaining subjects, show what can legally be done or not done about declaring impasse in this situation.

Please answer in detail every question, my professor become picky with his papers

Also, use as reference this textbook Understanding Labor Law