|
MAIN INDEX Doc. No. 21 MEMORANDUM OF JOINT COMMITMENT: EMPLOYEE PLACEMENT FOR CLOSED AND DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS Both parties recognize the importance of fully utilizing GM-UAW employees in regular, productive work. In this regard, the parties will continue to build on past joint efforts aimed at providing opportunities and incentives designed to encourage laid-off, Protected and active employees to relocate to available job opportunities at UAW-GM facilities outside of their current location, with particular emphasis on placing employees from closed or discontinued operations. The parties, in committing to continued cooperation in this employee placement effort, recognize that necessary productivity and quality improvements, together with the effects of normal and accelerated attrition activities, have had and will continue to have a significant impact on staffing requirements at GM locations. The parties agree that an employee placement, relocation and stabilization program will be jointly developed for closed and discontinued operations which will encourage accelerated retirements, relocation and placement of affected employees. Such program will be tailored on a mutually agreeable basis to the individual needs and circumstances of affected locations. A detailed plan, including a range of specific alternatives from which the employee will choose, will be offered to affected employees at the earliest practical time but in no event later than 60 days after the closing or discontinuation of an affected operation. Doc. No. 22 NOTICE TO LAID OFF EMPLOYEES OF ANTICIPATED RECALL Inter-Organization GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION Date: September 28, 1999 Subject: Notice to Laid Off Employees of Anticipated Recall To: All General Managers All Personnel Directors As a part of current negotiations, General Motors informed the International Union, UAW that Mr. George B. Morris, Jr.'s letter of November 22, 1976, concerning Notice to Laid Off Employees of Anticipated Recall would again be published. The text of that letter is as follows: "During 1976 negotiations, the parties discussed at length the problems involved in recalling large masses of employes back to work from layoff in situations such as the addition of a shift at a plant. Both parties recognized the mutual interest that would be served by the local management notifying laid off seniority employes in advance of such known mass recalls to facilitate the orderly recall when it in fact occurs. "Accordingly, when mass recalls are anticipated sufficiently in advance at a local plant, local management and the local union should discuss the matter of a pre-recall notification to employes in an attempt to arrive at a mutually satisfactory method to implement the notice. "It is mutually recognized that such notice or lack of notice will be without prejudice to either party in the application of any terms of the National Agreement or any local agreements. Moreover, any agreement reached with respect to advanced notice of anticipated recall will not be cited or relied upon by an employe or the union or the management as a basis for a claim for or denial of back pay." Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Par. (64)(d)] Doc. No. 23 EMPLOYEE RATING FORMS GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION September 28, 1999 Mr. Richard Shoemaker Vice President and Director General Motors Department International Union, UAW 8000 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48214 Dear Mr. Shoemaker: This will confirm our advice to you during the recent negotiations that in the event a seniority employee is laid off in a reduction in force and an employee rating form is completed, no indication will be made on such form as to whether or not the employee is recommended for rehire at that plant or for preferential hiring consideration under Appendix A of the National Agreement. Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See App. A] [See Doc. 21] Doc. No. 24 REPRESENTATION DURING MANAGEMENT MEETINGS GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION September 28, 1999 Mr. Richard Shoemaker Vice President and Director General Motors Department International Union, UAW 8000 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48214 Dear Mr. Shoemaker: During current negotiations, the Union expressed concern that the increased requirements on the Committeepersons' time for attendance at management meetings was, on occasion, preventing employees from receiving representation in a timely manner. In this regard, the Corporation and the Union agreed that when such a situation exists, the local parties will allow the Alternate District Committeeperson to handle current grievances until such time as the District Committeeperson becomes available. In the case of District Committeepersons who are also members of the Shop Committee pursuant to Paragraph (11) of the National Agreement, the local parties will allow their Alternate District Committeepersons to handle current grievances during the period that such District Committeeperson is legitimately involved in meeting with Management at Step Two and Step Three of the Grievance Procedure or during other mutually agreed upon local contract negotiations meetings. Any problems in this area should be raised with the GM Department of the UAW or with the Corporation Labor Relations Staff. Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Par. (19c), (25)] Doc. No. 25 "CLOSED PLANTS" POLICY--VACATION PAY GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION September 28, 1999 Mr. Richard Shoemaker Vice President and Director General Motors Department International Union, UAW 8000 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48214 Dear Mr. Shoemaker: During current negotiations, General Motors reaffirmed the matter of Mr. L. G. Seaton's December 15, 1967 letter to the International Union, UAW regarding the Corporation's "closed plants" policy as it affects vacation pay of certain employees. The text of that letter is as follows: "During recent contract negotiations, the parties discussed General Motors' long standing policy ('closed plants' policy) applicable to employes who, after receiving a vacation pay allowance at a General Motors plant based on seniority held in some other General Motors plant, broke seniority at the other General Motors plant under Paragraph (64)(e) of the National Agreement. They also discussed the effect of Paragraph (188) of the new National Agreement on these employes and on employes to whom Paragraph (187) of the 1961 National Agreement was applied. "The Corporation informed the International Union that during the term of the new National Agreement the provisions of Paragraph (188) shall apply to an employe whose vacation pay allowance was computed, as of his latest vacation pay allowance eligibility date under the 1961 National Agreement, in accordance with the Corporation's 'closed plants' policy or in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph (187) of the 1961 National Agreement, notwithstanding the fact that Paragraph (188) refers to seniority being broken 'hereafter.'" Very truly yours Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations Doc. No. 26 PRIOR SENIORITY --VACATION PAY Inter-Organization GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION Date: September 28, 1999 Subject: Prior Seniority - Vacation Pay To: General Managers Personnel Directors As a part of the current negotiations, General Motors informed the International Union, UAW that the George B. Morris, Jr. letter of November 19, 1973 regarding prior seniority would again be published. The text of that letter is as follows: "During 1973 national negotiations, discussions were held regarding employes who had prior seniority in another General Motors plant which has not been recognized in the computation of vacation pay allowance. "The Corporation agreed that a period will be established during which such an employe can apply for use of such prior seniority in calculating future vacation pay allowances provided the employe meets the following criteria: "1. Written application is made no later than February 28, 1974 on forms provided by the Corporation at the local plant Personnel Departments. (For employes with seniority dated between July 1, 1954, and July 1, 1960, who are on seniority layoff or leave of absence as of the effective date of the 1973 National Agreement, an application will be mailed to their address of record.) "2. The employe has continuously held seniority at the plant in which he is now working, and elected to remain at work at such plant rather than accept recall to the plant in which he held an earlier seniority date, and as a consequence, such earlier seniority was broken pursuant to Paragraph (64)(d) between July 1, 1953, and July 1, 1960, inclusive. "3. Adjustments to vacation pay allowance eligibility under these provisions shall only be made in those cases which can be substantiated by information contained in, or originating from, General Motors records. "4. The employe meets all other National Agreement eligibility rules. "Once the earlier seniority date is recognized as provided above, it shall be applied on the employe's vacation pay allowance eligibility date following the effective date of the Agreement. "It was further understood that nothing in this letter would serve to change an employe's current annual vacation pay allowance eligibility date." Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Par. (188)] Doc. No. 27 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING DRUG TESTING During 1990 National Negotiations, the parties discussed at length the worsening drug problem in our country and the rising incidence of chemical dependency. Chemical dependence on the part of employees impacts the workplace in terms of quality, productivity, and effectiveness of operations, while threatening the safety and well-being of both the chemically-dependent employee and his/her co-workers. As a result, the parties agreed to institute a screening program and to periodically review it during the term of the agreement and make adjustments where deemed appropriate. This memorandum reflects such screening program and adjustments to it. Process Employees may be screened for substance abuse (alcohol and drugs) in the following instances: 1. As part of a return to work physical for employees returning from substance abuse related sick leaves of absence. 2. As required by law; such as, F.A.A., D.O.T. and D.O.D. All testing and reporting will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines established by the Department of Health and Human Services. Implications It is not the intent of the testing requirements to imply that an employee is impaired at the time a sample is provided for testing. An individual who tests positive will be handled in the following manner: 1. FIRST POSITIVE: The employee will be deferred from working for approximately two weeks and scheduled for follow-up testing. EAP services are to be offered to the employee and the employee is to be referred to the CDR. The employee will automatically be subject to further unannounced screening for a period of three months. 2. SECOND POSITIVE: The employee will again be deferred from working for approximately two weeks and scheduled for follow-up testing. EAP services are to again be offered to the employee and the employee is to be referred to the CDR. The employee will automatically be subject to further unannounced screening for a period of six months. 3. THIRD POSITIVE: The employee will again be deferred from working for approximately two weeks and scheduled for follow-up testing. EAP services are to again be offered to the employee and the employee is to be referred to the CDR. The employee will automatically be subject to further unannounced screening for a period of twelve months. 4. FOURTH POSITIVE: The employee will be discharged regardless of prior disciplinary record or length of service. Grievances protesting irregularities in the testing procedure may be taken through the grievance procedure; however, extent of penalties arguments are not subject to the Umpire's discretion. All positive test results will be subject to a mutually agreed to third party evaluation upon request of either party. Problems selecting a third party may be referred to the National Work/Family Committee. Employees who refuse to be tested will be treated as though they had tested positive. Once terminated, if the employee satisfactorily documents to local management and local union six months continuous sobriety, within the 60 months following discharge, the employee will qualify for re-employment under Article VII of Document 39 of the National Agreement. International Union, UAW General Motors Corporation Dated: September 28, 1999 Doc. No. 28 DRUG TESTING - FEDERALLY MANDATED GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION September 28, 1999 Mr. Richard Shoemaker Vice President and Director General Motors Department International Union, UAW 8000 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48214 Dear Mr. Shoemaker: Re: Federally Mandated Drug Testing During these negotiations, the parties discussed the subject of drug testing mandated by the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the handling of positive drug tests under this legislation. It is the Corporation's intent to continue the practice of removing employees who test positive from the covered job. If an employee who is required to be tested by law, tests positive then transfers to a non-covered classification, the employee will be removed from the drug testing pool and will not be subject to further drug testing except in the case of return from substance abuse related sick leave. Such employees will not be returned to a covered job until submitting to a further drug screen and testing negative. The parties will discuss and develop a process for the placement of employees who have tested positive and wish to be placed in an assignment involving the use of motorized equipment requiring a license. Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations Doc. No. 29 PERSONNEL PRACTICES GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION September 28, 1999 Mr. Richard Shoemaker Vice President and Director General Motors Department International Union, UAW 8000 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48214 Dear Mr. Shoemaker: During the 1999 negotiations the subject of personnel practices with different application to hourly and salaried employees was again discussed as an area giving rise to the appearance of a "double standard" of treatment. To this end, it was agreed to republish the text of the October 8, 1987 A. S. Warren, Jr. letter on the subject of such personnel practices: "During these negotiations, the Union expressed concern regarding certain plant personnel practices that have different application to salaried and hourly employees. It was stated that such practices may adversely impact employee attitudes thereby affecting union-management efforts to improve local operations and the work environment. "The Corporation responded by describing the many innovative and varied approaches taken by local parties in an increasing number of plant locations to address these issues. "Accordingly, it was agreed that such matters are more appropriate for discussion by the local parties as part of their continuing efforts to establish a work environment and relationship characterized by mutual respect and trust." Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations Doc. No. 30 GM EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT POLICY GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION September 28, 1999 Mr. Richard Shoemaker Vice President and Director General Motors Department International Union, UAW 8000 East Jefferson Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48214 Dear Mr. Shoemaker: The following is the text of the written and published policy of General Motors in employment: "Operating as it does on a nationwide basis, General Motors Corporation offers employment opportunities to many people in many different locations throughout the United States. "The policy of the Corporation is to extend these opportunities to qualified applicants and employees on an equal basis regardless of an individual's age, race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation. "Hiring and employment practices and procedures implementing this policy are the responsibility of the employing units. However, these practices, procedures and decisions are to be, at all times, in conformity with the Corporation Equal Opportunity Employment Policy." Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Preface, Par. (6a), (63), (153)] [See Doc. 31, 32, 33, 99]
|