|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. A-1 OCTOBER 28, 1940
Decision on Issue of Alternate Committeemen’s Preferential Right to Work
GRIEVANCES Chevrolet Bay City—Case No. 1 "I request back wages from 11:30 A.M., July 11 to July 27. I should have worked as an alternate committeeman during this time, as there were about 100 men working in my district." Chevrolet Bay City—Case No. 2 "I request pay from July 3 to July 29 because there were 50 men in my district." Chevrolet Bay City—Case No. 4 "I request pay for Saturday August 17. There were 65 employes working in my district. I was not brought in as a committeeman." Chevrolet Flint—Case No. 14 "Refused to allow committeeman 40 hours work for week of July 29 to August 3, 1940." Chevrolet Gear & Axle—Case No. 17 "There were about 50 men working in my district last Thursday and some of them were production men. I want to know why I was not let work? I think I should be paid for time lost." Chevrolet Gear & Axle—Case No. 26 "I have been discriminated against by not being allowed to work last week (40 hours a regular work week) when there are 10 men in my district. This is a violation of the agreement between the Union and the Company." Chevrolet Gear & Axle—Case No. 27 "I was discriminated against by not being allowed to work last Thursday and Friday. This is a violation of the Agreement. I request to be compensated for my lost time."
SUMMARY These employees (Alternate Committeemen) were not called in when the District Committeeman was called to work on overtime and extra work. The Union claimed that under the Agreement, the Alternate has the same preferential right to work as the District Committeeman and that they should be paid for time lost.
The UMPIRE ruled that: There is no urgent need to call in both the Alternate and the Committeeman in order that one will almost certainly be present. Most grievances do not call for attention "then and there." Many are not taken up on the day they arise and a very large proportion of those that are could go over for a day without injury. The Alternate does not have the same preferential right to work as is possessed by the Committeeman. The claims for back pay are denied. The verbatim decision of the UMPIRE is as follows:
In the Matter of: William R. Campbell, Chevrolet Parts, Bay City (Case 1); Joseph M. Douponce, Chevrolet Parts, Bay City (Case 2); William R. Campbell, Chevrolet Parts, Bay City (Case 4); Harvey M. Morton, Chevrolet Motor Division, Flint (Case 14); P. Mahoney, Chevrolet Gear and Axle, Detroit (Case 17); Forrest S. Timmon, Chevrolet Gear and Axle, Detroit (Case 26); and Forrest S. Timmon, Chevrolet Gear and Axle, Detroit (Case 27).
These several employees claim that on specified days they were denied a right to work given them under the Agreement between the General Motors Corporation and the International Union United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O., and that they should be paid for time lost. All seven cases involve the same issue and have therefore been joined for consideration and decision. The issue is whether alternate committeemen have the same preference in overtime and extra work when only a part of the plant is "running," as has been specifically provided for in the cases of committeemen. The specific provision is found in Representation, Paragraph (3), page 7 of the Agreement. It reads: Whenever ten or more employees covered by this Agreement are working in a district the committeeman for that district shall be allowed to work, provided there is work which he is capable of doing, and he shall be paid the current rate of pay for such work.
The Union’s Interpretation of the Agreement and Its Contentions Though there is no corresponding provision relating to alternate committeemen, the Union contends that they and committeemen have the same preferential employment right. This contention is based in part upon the fact that the two sets of representatives have the same seniority rights. "District and alternate committeemen shall head the seniority lists in their respective districts" (Agreement, General Provisions Regarding Seniority, Paragraph (16), page 23). In addition, the Agreement provides that the duties of an alternate committeeman "shall be the same as those of the regular committeeman for that district while he is absent from the plant" (Agreement, Representation, Paragraph (2), page 7). The Union contends that for the alternate committeeman to be available as a substitute for the committeeman when the latter is absent from the plant he, too, must be called in on overtime and extra work. Grievances can be handled only by the one or the other. No substitute can be selected and receive recognition without prior notification to management. A recognized official should be available at all times. These are the Union’s main contentions. In addition to these, it notes the importance of making the position of alternate committeeman attractive in order that it will not be shunned because of the time required outside of working hours, particularly in the collection of dues. It also calls attention to the fact that while dues are collected outside of working hours and on the Corporation’s property, no one not working on the particular day is admitted to the plant. Hence, were an alternate committeeman not working for a continuous period of a couple of weeks or more, as in Cases No. 1 and No. 2, there would be no one present to collect dues in the usual manner from those members of the Union who were working. Finally, the Union asserts that inasmuch as the preferential right to work in question is conditioned by ability to perform available work, sustaining its position "would not cost the Corporation a penny." It is merely a question whether for a day or so now and then an alternate committeeman rather than some one else will work. The alternate committeeman would earn somewhat more, the others somewhat less, but this is said to be agreeable to the members of the U.A.W.
The Corporation’s Interpretation of the Agreement The Corporation’s position is that none of these claims is justified by a proper interpretation of the Agreement. Incidentally, it calls attention to the fact that in all of the cases except Case No. 4 the committeeman was working and that in the exceptional case there was no work the alternate was capable of doing. Under the same circumstances, a committeeman would have had no right to work and would not be used on overtime or extra work. Also, at the conference held by the Umpire in order to supplement and clarify the briefs submitted, the Corporation took the position that the claims had been presented too late to require compensation were they held to have merit. Finally, the Corporation expresses fear of loss in efficiency and of impaired morale. A worker may be less efficient on available work he is able to perform than on the job to which he is regularly assigned. As regards its main position, the Corporation contends that insofar as the Union’s case rests upon the provision that "District and alternate committeemen shall head the seniority lists in their respective districts" (Agreement, General Provisions Regarding Seniority, Paragraph (16), page 23), it is without merit. Seniority has to do only with lay-off, which is not involved in any of these seven cases. It has nothing to do with extra work; for such work selections are not made on the basis of seniority. Attention is called to the provision of the Agreement which relates specifically to committeemen—that quoted above on page 1. Had it been agreed that committeemen and alternate committeemen should have the same preferential right to work, that both of them should work when ten or more employees were on extra work, the clause would have been differently worded. The words "and alternate committeeman" would have been inserted after the word "committeeman." The Agreement, the Corporation contends, is to be interpreted and applied as written. Changes and additions can be made only by successful negotiation between the parties in interest. Interpreting the Agreement as written, Mr. Tanner on July 17, 1940, issued a letter with reference to alternate committeemen to all general managers of the plants covered by the Agreement, reading, in part, as follows: In cases where ten or more employees are working in a district on Saturdays or any other day when the plant is shut down, the district committeeman shall be allowed to work, so as to represent the employees, if there is work he is capable of doing. The alternate committeeman need not work unless his regular job is operating or in case the district committeeman does not work. It was upon the basis of this interpretation of the Agreement that the alternate committeemen filing claims had not been used on extra work.
The Umpire’s Observations and Decision The Umpire finds in these several cases no circumstance of past practice, no commitment, or other reason for not following the words of the Agreement in making his decision. Of course it is important to make arduous jobs of union representatives attractive and to make it convenient for these representatives to function, but such matters can be taken care of in various ways. The committeeman or the alternate will almost always be among those engaged on extra work without both of them having a preferential right. There is no urgent need to call in both in order that one will almost certainly be present, for except on very rare occasions the committeeman will be present when he, say at the close of the preceding day, is expected, and expects, to be present. Moreover, most grievances do not call for attention "then and there." Many of them are not taken up on the day they arise and a very large proportion of those that are so taken up could go over for a day without injury. Finally, were the Union’s position sustained, there might be some loss in efficiency in concrete cases. The Union’s interpretation of the Agreement, one which would give the alternate committeeman the same preferential right to work as is possessed by the committeeman, is rejected. Insofar as the evidence goes, the Corporation in applying the rule in these several cases, was acting within its right. The claims of the several alternate committeemen are disallowed. In ruling as he does on these several cases, the Umpire assumes that no technical question of late presentation of a claim will be raised by management when delay in its presentation is due to the absence of both committeeman and alternate committeeman at the time the grievance developed.
H. A. MILLIS UMPIRE October 28, 1940.
Present at the October 21 meeting referred to in this decision were Messrs. Du Brul and Coen of General Motors, Messrs. Reuther, Livingston, and Johnstone of the Union, and the Umpire and his secretary. |