|
MAIN INDEX Doc. No. 51 DISCIPLINE FOR GARNISHMENTS 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 parties discussed the subject of assessing corrective discipline for the shop rule regarding garnishments. Additionally, there was discussion concerning the variations in state laws relating to garnishments and the resulting inconsistencies between plant locations in the application of corrective discipline to garnishments. In order to assure uniformity between plants in the handling of this matter and to insure compliance with applicable State and Federal laws on this subject, the Corporation informed the Union that, as a matter of policy as of the effective date of the 1979 National Agreement, formal disciplinary action will no longer be taken for future violations of the Shop Rule regarding garnishments. Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Par. (76)] Doc. No. 52 REINSTATEMENT OF GRIEVANCES 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 current National negotiations, the parties acknowledged the desirability of ensuring prompt, fair and final resolution of employee grievances. The parties also recognized that the maintenance of a stable, effective and dependable grievance procedure is necessary to implement the foregoing principle to which they both subscribe. Accordingly, the parties view any attempt to reinstate a grievance properly disposed of as contrary to the purpose for which the grievance procedure was established and violative of the fundamental principles of collective bargaining. However, in those instances where the International Union, UAW, by either its Executive Board, Public Review Board, or Constitutional Convention Appeals Committee has reviewed the disposition of a grievance and found that such disposition was improperly effected by the Union or a Union representative involved, the General Motors Department of the International Union may inform the Corporation's Industrial Relations Staff in writing that such grievance is reinstated in the Grievance Procedure at the step at which the original disposition of the grievance occurred. It is agreed, however, that the Corporation will not be liable for any claims for damages, including back pay claims, arising out of the grievance that either are already barred under the provisions of the National Agreement at the time of the reinstatement of the grievance or that relate to the period between the time of the original disposition and the time of the reinstatement as provided herein. It is further agreed that the reinstatement of any such grievance shall be conditioned upon the prior agreement of the Union and the employee or employees involved that none of them will thereafter pursue such claims for damages against the Corporation in the Grievance Procedure, or in any court or before any Federal, State, or municipal agency. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a decision of the Impartial Umpire or any other arbitrator on any grievance shall continue to be final and binding on the Union and its members, the employee or employees involved and the Corporation and such grievance shall not be subject to reinstatement. This letter is not to be construed as modifying in any way either the rights or obligations of the parties under the terms of the National Agreement, except as specifically limited herein, and does not affect sections thereof that cancel financial liability or limit the payment or retroactivity of any claim, including claims for back wages, or that provide for the final and binding nature of any decisions by the Impartial Umpire or other grievance resolutions. It is understood this letter and the parties obligations to reinstate grievances as provided herein can be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days notice in writing to the other. It is agreed that none of the above provisions will be applicable to any case settled prior to December 13, 1976. Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Par. (38), (53), (79i)] Doc. No. 53 FURNISHING WORK ELEMENTS - STANDARDS CASES Inter-Organization GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION Date: September 28, 1999 Subject: Furnishing Work Elements - Standards Cases To: All General Managers and All Personnel Directors During current negotiations, General Motors informed the International Union, UAW that it was its intention to republish the Corporation's letter concerning Furnishing Work Elements - Standards Cases. The text of that letter is as follows: "During past negotiations the parties discussed at length the Union's charges that there were occasions when the work elements of a job requested by the Committeeman pursuant to Paragraph (79) were not furnished in a timely manner. "The Corporation and the Union have reaffirmed their mutual determination to adhere to the spirit and intent of Paragraph (79). In addition, there is agreement that in nearly all cases a more expeditious settlement of grievances can be reached when there is prompt and full exchange of pertinent information. In this regard the text of Paragraph (79) of the GM-UAW National Agreement provides that the work elements of a job in dispute will be furnished 'without undue delay.' It is recognized by the Union that there will be occasions when due to production acceleration, volume of production standards grievances filed, etc., the information requested by the Committeeman cannot be furnished as promptly as under normal circumstances. "We have advised the Union that the words 'without undue delay' mean as soon as reasonably possible under circumstances existing at the time the request is made for the work elements of the job." Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations Doc. No. 54 EMPLOYEE TRANSFER OR RE-ASSIGNMENT Inter-Organization GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION Date: September 28, 1999 Subject: Transfer or Re-Assignment of Employees To: All General Managers and All Personnel Directors As a part of the current negotiations General Motors informed the International Union, UAW that it was the Corporation's intention to republish Mr. L. G. Seaton's letter of December 15, 1967 regarding the transfer or reassignment of employees who complained about production standards or discipline. The text of that letter is as follows: "During the negotiations resulting in the 1967 GM-UAW National Agreement, the parties discussed the claim raised by the Union regarding employes being transferred or re-assigned to 'less desirable' jobs because they initiated complaints regarding production standards or discipline. In addition, in the case of probationary employes, the Union stated that some were separated because they initiated production standards complaints. "It is important for General Motors to retain its right to transfer employes in order to maintain and improve efficiency in our operations. It is also important to respect the right of employes to file legitimate grievances regarding production standards or disciplinary action. "The International Union has been advised that we do not consider it proper to transfer, re-assign or separate employes because they file such grievances. "It is expected that this position will be given your full support and that of your Management organization." Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Par. (76), (79h)] Doc. No. 55 IMPLEMENTATION OF PRODUCTION STANDARDS SETTLEMENTS 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 and the International Union, UAW have reaffirmed the informal procedure dealing with the implementation of production standards settlements as outlined in Mr. Earl R. Bramblett's letter of October 5, 1964. The text of that letter is as follows: "In the course of current negotiations the Union has alleged that in some cases the solution agreed upon in settlement of production standards grievances was not implemented in a timely fashion. The Union has also alleged that in certain cases settlements agreed upon were violated. "In the course of these negotiations we have reaffirmed our mutual determination to avoid misunderstandings in this area in the future. In that connection, we have adopted the following informal procedure for use in cases in which it is alleged that a settlement of a work standards grievance, reached during negotiations in which a member of the GM Department of the UAW and a representative of the Central Office Labor Relations Staff of a multi-plant car or body division, and/or the Corporation Personnel Staff participated, has not been implemented in a timely manner, or that after implementation the settlement has been violated: "1. The complaint may be reviewed by the Chairman of the Shop Committee and Plant Personnel Director. "2. If not resolved, the Chairman may submit his statement of the case in writing to the Plant Personnel Director spelling out the details of the complaint. "3. The Plant Personnel Director shall submit a written reply within one (1) working day of receipt of the written statement. "4. If the matter is not resolved within three (3) working days after the Personnel Director's written reply, the Chairman of the Shop Committee may submit a written report of the disputed case to the General Motors Department of the UAW in which case the Plant Personnel Director, after notice by the Chairman of the Shop Committee of such submission, will submit a written report to his Divisional Central Office. "5. If these parties are unable to resolve the dispute, it may then be reviewed by the General Motors Department of the UAW with the General Motors Labor Relations Staff where it will be resolved. "This letter and this procedure are not intended to prejudice any contractual position either General Motors or the UAW may take in any case arising under the National Agreement." It was agreed between the parties as a result of current negotiations that similar complaints regarding work standards grievance settlements that are resolved without the assistance of Corporation, Central Office or GM Department personnel may also be processed under this informal procedure. Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Par. (79), (79i)] Doc. No. 56 RELIEF TIME - CERTAIN OPERATIONS 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 relief time in automobile manufacturing plants on operations on which the employees' manual operations are continuous and which cannot be left unattended and for which the Corporation provides "tag" relief, and on certain other operations that the Corporation determines are likewise of such a nature as to give the employees no control over their work pace, shall be twenty-three (23) minutes before lunch and twenty-three (23) minutes after lunch on a regular eight (8) hour shift, making a total of forty-six (46) minutes. This will not affect relief allowance now in effect on certain specific operations due to environmental job conditions. The amount of such relief shall be modified accordingly for a shift other than a regular eight (8) hour shift. The Plant Management may, by mutual agreement with the Local Union, allocate the relief before and after lunch to not more than two (2) periods before lunch and two (2) periods after lunch. Sufficient labor will be provided to enable employees to obtain the above relief taking into consideration that the first hour at the start of the shift and the first one-half hour after lunch are not ordinarily required for relief except in emergencies. The parties have agreed to continue the following informal procedure to address complaints regarding this subject. 1. The complaint may be raised by the Chairperson of the Shop Committee directly with the Plant Personnel Director. 2. If not resolved, the Chairperson may refer the problem to a representative of the General Motors Department of the International Union who may request a meeting with either a representative of a divisional Central Office or a member of the Corporation Labor Relations Section to discuss the complaint and take appropriate action. This letter and this informal procedure are not intended to prejudice the position of either General Motors or the UAW. Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Doc. 57] [See CSA #4] Doc. No. 57 QUALITY NETWORK IMPLEMENTATION REDEPLOYMENT AND MEANINGFUL WORK During the term of the 1990 GM-UAW National Agreement and through the direction of the North American Operations (NAO) UAW-GM Quality Council, the focus of the Quality Network evolved and changed from development to implementation. During this same period, GM North American Operations experienced operating losses requiring more efficient practices and a renewed focus on product quality. Implementation of Synchronous Workshops, Accelerated Workshops (i.e., PICOS), Lean Manufacturing and other quality improvement activities, such as, best practices, resulted in health and safety, ergonomic, and operational improvements affecting quality and the cost of GM products and services. In many cases, these activities resulted in UAW-represented GM employees being placed in a JOBS Bank under the terms of the 1990 GM-UAW National Agreement. The Union leadership felt they could not be party to asking their members to assist in "working themselves out of a job" by supporting these efforts. In any joint effort, job security and "people issues" had to be considered so that people would be redeployed to meaningful work. The issue was discussed at the January 13, 1992, GM Quality Council meeting resulting in specific commitments to integrate synchronous efforts into the joint Quality Network Process and explore ways to employ people more effectively with meaningful work and help improve the business. When funding for the JOBS Bank was exhausted and the program discontinued, Management recognized that employee support and involvement in plant quality and productivity improvement activities were essential. As a result, on March 2, 1993, after the JOBS funding was exhausted and employees in the JOBS Bank were laid off, an "Employment Policy" was made effective which resulted in employees being retained at work and not laid off when such employees were impacted by jointly initiated product quality and operational effectiveness improvement efforts. During the 1993 negotiations, the parties discussed the above events and the Union provided examples of successful redeployment processes. These redeployment processes, implemented at divisions and plants, resulted in people being retained at work and redeployed to meaningful assignments after they had been made available as a result of quality and productivity improvements and other initiatives. Following 1993 negotiations, the parties agreed to jointly develop guidelines for redeployment processes, similar to those reviewed by the parties, to assist plant and staff locations with planning for redeployment opportunities. Such guidelines were intended to assist the local parties with the development of plans that put first emphasis on redeployment of employees to meaningful assignments, which included regular productive assignments and "non-traditional" work, as well as efforts to competitively retain or insource new work. Accordingly during these negotiations, the parties again restated their intent to not place employees in underutilized or unproductive assignments or only contemplate utilization of the job security provisions of the National Agreement. Further, the parties agreed to reissue the document “Guidelines for Redeployment and Meaningful Work” (QN#2251) and that they would re-emphasize the importance of the local parties developing redeployment plans. Doc. No. 58 SUBCONTRACTING-IMPLEMENTATION PARAGRAPH (183)(d) 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 current negotiations the UAW complained that procedures set forth in Paragraph (183)(d) are not being satisfactorily implemented by Management in many instances. This letter is intended to clarify the intent and purpose of this provision: 1. The "advance discussion" except where time and circumstances prevent it, will take place "prior to letting the contract for the performance of maintenance and construction work," before any decision has been made as to whether the work should be contracted out. The "advance discussion" will include information as to "why Management is contemplating contracting out the work." It is evident that except as noted above, since Management is only "contemplating contracting out the work" when the "advance discussion" takes place, Management should not have made any decisions concerning whether or not to contract out the work before such "advance discussion" is held. 2. Management should advise the local Union of the "nature, scope and approximate dates of the work to be performed and the reason or reasons (equipment, manpower etc.), why Management is contemplating contracting out the work." This information is related to the letter dated December 14, 1967, to the International Union signed by Mr. Louis G. Seaton. That letter makes reference to "manpower, skills, equipment and facilities" and also as to whether the Corporation "can do the work competitively in quality, cost and performance and within the projected time limit." Since any or all of these conditions may be entailed in the determination as to whether a particular contract should be let out or not, it is necessary that Management advise the local Union in the "advance discussion" concerning the item or items which are relevant to the decision-making. 3. If in the "advance discussion" it is clear that Management is only "contemplating contracting out the work" and if in addition all the pertinent information as noted above is supplied to the local Union, then local Union representatives will be given a better opportunity "to comment on Management's plans" and will also give an opportunity to Management "to give appropriate weight to those comments in the light of all attendant circumstances." 4. These advance discussions should include a Management representative of the Plant Engineering or Maintenance activities knowledgeable of the issues. In addition the Union complained that in certain instances plant Management requested and contracted for maintenance service on leased equipment, and extended warranty arrangements or service contracts were being purchased which impacted the job security of seniority employees in skilled trades classifications. Management stated that, while Paragraph (183)(b) covers the "fulfillment of normal warranty obligations by the vendor", warranty arrangements that extend beyond those customarily provided or the obtaining of service contracts are not covered by these provisions. Rather, such arrangements or service contracts covering work normally and historically performed by represented skilled trades employees are to be considered in the same manner as contracts for the performance of maintenance work and such decisions are covered by the provisions of Paragraph (183)(c) of the National Agreement. The local plant Managements will be advised accordingly. Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Par. (42a)] [See App. F, F1, F2] [See Doc. 59] Doc. No. 59 ADVANCE DISCUSSION - DIE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS 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 current negotiations the parties held lengthy discussions of subcontracting the construction of sheet metal dies and die tryout to non-General Motors sources and its effect on the job security of seniority employees in skilled trades classifications. The Union complained that the current provisions of the National Agreement do not provide for the Union to have sufficient advance knowledge of possible impact of such subcontracting on the job security of seniority employees engaged in the construction of sheet metal dies and die tryout associated with major body sheet metal parts. During the discussions the parties recognized that a large amount of such work is the responsibility of the Die Management Group-Metal Fabricating Division. The Die Management Group has substantial die construction capacity, however it has historically been necessary for them to subcontract portions of each annual model program because of, among other things, the efficiencies and economies involved, the need for specialized tools and equipment, special skills and the necessity of meeting production schedules, model change and plant rearrangement deadlines, the complicating effect of design modifications and bottleneck operations such as machining limitations and the unavailability of presses to perform the necessary tryout work. In recognition of the Union's desire for advance knowledge of such subcontracting, the Corporation agreed that when a Local Plant Management at these locations is contemplating a decision to subcontract such die work to non-General Motors sources, Local Management will, except where time and circumstances prevent it, have advance discussion with Local Union representatives concerning the nature, scope and approximate dates of the work to be performed and the reasons why Management is contemplating contracting out the work. At such times, Management representatives are expected to afford the Union an opportunity to comment on Management's plans and to give appropriate weight to those comments in light of all attendant circumstances. The International Union, UAW, expressed a desire to have knowledge of the overall scope of contemplated die construction programs and plastic body parts programs. Accordingly, in addition to the above, the Corporation stated that Divisional Headquarters representatives have expressed a willingness to meet with representatives from the GM Department of the International Union from time to time to discuss the general nature and scope of die construction work and work normally done in the bargaining unit involving plastic body parts that is contemplated being contracted out by its' Headquarters Offices. In addition, the parties recognized that subcontracting in connection with major tool, die and engineering projects within other Divisions of the Corporation and at the Technical Center is an extremely complex subject. The different types of such work being subcontracted, time constraints imposed upon completion, facilities limitations and the variety of ways such work is handled among such other Corporation Divisions all add to the complexity of this subject. The Corporation stated that tool, die and engineering shops in other Divisions are primarily equipped and staffed to provide maintenance and service to productive operations. To provide individual notice of each subcontract would be complex and burdensome, therefore, the parties focused their discussions on broader information concerning annual model programs and the introduction of major new products. Accordingly, Headquarters representatives of such other Divisions and representatives of Technical Center facilities have expressed a willingness to meet with representatives of the GM Department of the International Union from time to time to discuss the nature and scope of major new product programs or annual model programs including major tool, die and engineering work of the type normally and historically performed by represented employees that the Division anticipates subcontracting to non-General Motors sources. In the event a plant is responsible for its own major new product programs or annual model program plans, Local Management will meet with affected Local Union representatives for the purpose of reviewing such plans and provide summary minutes of the meeting. Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Par. (122), (183)(d)] [See App. F, F1, F2] [See Doc. 58, 98] Doc. No. 60 PRE-APPRENTICE TRAINING 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 current negotiations the parties discussed pre-apprentice training as one method of achieving our common goal of bringing a greater number of members of minority groups and females into the apprentice training program. It is evident that we share a serious concern about the establishment of effective methods of achieving this desirable goal. Accordingly, the GM-UAW Skilled Trades and Apprentice Committee, upon determining that a plant’s skilled trades workforce is under-represented by minority groups and females, will consider matters pertaining to pre-apprentice training as it relates to achieving the above objective as well as approve any such training program for which points can be awarded under the GM-UAW Apprentice Selection Procedure. Very truly yours, Gary L. Cowger Group Vice President - Labor Relations [See Par. (122)f, (127)(g)]
|