|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. A-118 June 30, 1941
Question Relating to Promotion Procedure
GRIEVANCES: Fisher Flint No. 1 -- Case No. 83 "This man requests that he be placed in his former line of work and in his former department which is Final Assembly. His seniority would be more effective in Final Assembly than it is in the Trim Department." "This man wished to be returned to Final Assembly which is his former department. He states that his seniority would be more effective in Final Assembly than in the Trim Department." "This man’s seniority would be much more effective in Final Assembly than it is in the Trim Department. Therefore, he requests that he be sent back to his former department."
SUMMARY In February 1941, it became necessary to transfer several employees to the "Lower Quarters" group in the Trim Department and to select for transfer employees who would meet certain physical requirements of the jobs and who were otherwise qualified to perform trim operations. Management states it also gave consideration to the fact that some employees had made requests for promotion to better paying jobs. The three claimants in the present case were selected for transfer from $1.00 jobs in Final Assembly to $1.10 operations in the Trim Department. They have protested the transfer because they claim they would "be better off" to remain on the $1.00 job where their seniority would make it more likely that they would secure relatively full-time employment. The consequent grievances of the three men were discussed by the Shop Committee and Management on April 4, 1941. Management then stated the men would be returned to Final Assembly because it was not considered desirable to have "the complainants work in the Trim Department against their will." It was emphasized by Management, however, that it held the right to make such transfers, and that the return of the men to Assembly would have to be "at the convenience of the company." The Committee expressed concern over this approach to the matter and urged that the claimants be promptly placed back to Final Assembly because "if the men were not placed back in their own department before sixty (60) days were up they would lose their seniority standing in the department." The Union now protests the Management position in the case.
The UMPIRE ruled that: The three claimants ask, in their grievances, to be transferred back to their old jobs in Final Assembly. All are now back on their Assembly jobs so that answers to the basic questions raised by the Union are not essential for a settlement of the claims as made in the filed grievances. Approval cannot be given, however, to the Union contention that all transfers or promotions between occupational groups are prohibited by the terms of the Agreement of June 24, 1940 or by the local seniority agreement. On the contrary, such transfers are contemplated by Clauses 7 and 8 of the Seniority Section. The question of whether consideration to seniority in making transfers between occupational groups requires preference to high or to low seniority employees is not ruled upon in this case for obvious reasons. The verbatim decision of the UMPIRE is as follows: In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O. and General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body No. 1 -- Flint—Case No. 83.
On March 27, 1941, three grievances were presented in relation to the same matter. One, submitted by F., reads: "This man requests that he be placed in his former line of work and in his former department which is Final Assembly. His seniority would be more effective in Final Assembly than it is in the Trim Department." A second grievance was filed by H. and it reads: "This man wished to be returned to Final Assembly which is his former department. He states that his seniority would be more effective in Final Assembly than in the Trim Department." The third grievance was submitted by G. and reads: "This man’s seniority would be much more effective in Final Assembly than it is in the Trim Department. Therefore, he requests that he be sent back to his former department." A hearing on these grievances was held in Flint on June 12, 1941.
Nature of Case In February 1941, it became necessary to transfer several employees to the "Lower Quarters" group in the Trim Department and to select for transfer employees who would meet certain physical requirements of the jobs and who were otherwise qualified to perform trim operations. Management states it also gave consideration to the fact that some employees had made requests for promotion to better paying jobs. The three claimants in the present case were selected for transfer from $1.00 jobs in Final Assembly to $1.10 operations in the Trim Department. They have protested the transfer because they claim they would "be better off" to remain on the $1.00 job where their seniority would make it more likely that they would secure relatively full-time employment. In other words, their seniority dates would give them a relatively high position in Assembly but a relatively low position in the Trim Department. The consequent grievances of the three men were discussed by the Shop Committee and management on April 4, 1941. Management then stated the men would be returned to Final Assembly because it was not considered desirable to have "the complainants work in the Trim Department against their will." It was emphasized by management, however, that it held the right to make such transfers, and that the return of the men to Assembly would have to be "at the convenience of the company." The committee expressed concern over this approach to the matter and urged that the claimants be promptly placed back to Final Assembly because "if the men were not placed back in their own department before sixty (60) days were up they would lose their seniority standing in the department." The Union now protests the management position in the case. Union Claim In supporting the claims of these three men, the Union contends that their transfer was made in disregard of their wishes and was, moreover, contrary to the seniority agreement at this plant. Reference is to the seniority grouping, established on November 3, 1938 for the North Unit Trim Department, under which an A seniority grouping is listed as subsidiary to three major occupational groupings. At the time of these transfers, however, there were no employes at work in the subsidiary grouping in question. The Union contends, nevertheless, that it was not proper to move these three men from Final Assembly to Trim because these major departments have been negotiated in the Seniority Agreement as non-inter-changeable occupational groups. In addition, it is claimed that management erred in transferring these particular three men because management did so without giving proper consideration to their seniority standing in the Assembly Group. This phase of the Union claim raises the important question as to whether low or high seniority employees should be first transferred from $1.00 to $1.10 jobs in cases where there are other relative disadvantages connected with the higher paying jobs. The Union also charges that the transfer of the three claimants violated Clauses 3 and 4 of the Seniority Section of the June 24, 1940 Agreement. The claims of the Union add up to a request that "these men be placed back into the Final Assembly Department with full group and department seniority." Corporation Position It is contended by the Corporation that nothing in the National Agreement of June 24, 1940, or in the local seniority agreements, limits or restricts the action of management in transferring employees from one non-interchangeable occupational group to another, providing seniority is given reasonable consideration in the making of such transfers. The Corporation points out that the vacancies in question in this case paid $1.10 per hour and management determined to promote employees with seniority to these jobs rather than to hire new employees for these higher rated jobs. Clause 3-c of the Recognition Section is referred by the Corporation as giving management the sole right to select employees for promotion.
Observations and Decision of the Umpire The Union is in error in maintaining that Clauses 3 and 4 of the Seniority Section preclude transfers or promotions between occupational groups. Those clauses essentially concern the manner in which seniority lists are made up and the manner in which the seniority rights of employees are placed on such lists; they do not preclude transfers or promotions between occupational groups. Recognition that such transfers may be made is clearly evidenced by Clause 7 of the Seniority Section which provides that "When an employee is transferred from one occupational group to another for any reason, there shall be no loss of seniority..." This can only mean there will be cases where transfers will be made between occupational groups. Clause 8 further supports this conclusion since it provides that "In transferring employees, seniority will be secondary to other qualifications but will be given reasonable consideration..." It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the establishment of seniority lists by occupational groupings under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Seniority Section does not prevent the transfer of employees between occupational groups particularly since such transfers are specifically provided for by Clauses 7 and 8. It cannot be held that the transfers of the three claimants violated Clauses 3 and 4 of the Seniority Section. As a matter of fact, if a transfer between occupational groups could not have been made in the present case, new employees would have been hired at $1.10 per hour while employees with seniority remained on $1.00 jobs. Such a situation would not fail to give rise to grievances of a more serious nature than those of the present case. It would be unthinkable to countenance a general principle that would permit such a situation solely to find a reason for returning the three claimants to Final Assembly. At any event, the establishment of such a general principle is precluded by the very terms of the National Agreement. The Union also claims that their seniority in the Assembly group was not given reasonable consideration when the three employees were selected for transfers to Trim. This phase of the argument could easily get at "sixes and sevens" because management insists that it gave a very important consideration to the relatively long seniority record of these men in "promoting" them and also sought to act upon their earlier expressed desire for promotion. The trouble is that management apparently considered the transfer as a promotion because it was a change from $1.00 to $1.10 jobs. The claimants seem to have considered their transfer as in the nature of a demotion because of the greater likelihood of lay-off in the Trim Department. It would seem to be quite shortsighted, however, for the Union to contend that low seniority employees are invariably to be selected first for transfer from $1.00 to $1.10 jobs when such transfer is between occupational groups. This seems to have been a desired objective of the Union in this case. Again, it seems that a principle has been advanced principally to support the claims of the present case without much thought of its general implication. In this connection, the Union revised its position but insisted that, once an employee has established his seniority in an occupational seniority group, he then has a right to stay in that group, and management has no right to move him against his will to another non-interchangeable group. Although it is undesirable, as recognized by management in this case, to transfer or promote an employee against his will the right of an employee to refuse a transfer is not specifically given to him under the June 24, 1940 Agreement. This agreement does recognize, moreover, the right of management to make such transfers under Clauses 7 and 8 of the Seniority Section and under Clause 3-c of the Recognition Section as long as seniority is given reasonable consideration in transfers and as long as Union discrimination is not involved in transfers or promotions. The transfers in question cannot be considered as improper on the ground that they represented transfers between occupational groups or because they failed to give reasonable consideration to seniority. No claim has been made that Union discrimination was involved. The case is that the transfers or promotions proved to be undesirable because they were made against the will of the employees and management quickly saw the necessity of moving the men back to their old jobs as soon as practicable. It is to be noted that H. and G. were transferred to their former Final Assembly operations on April 14, 1941 and that F. was transferred as of June 16, 1941. The claims of all these employees, as stated in their filed grievances have been met. As respects the Union claim that their transfer was improper under the Agreement this can be substantiated only if it were shown that seniority was not given reasonable consideration or that Union discrimination was involved. There is no evidence bearing on the later phase, and the question raised as respects consideration to seniority cannot properly be appraised on the basis of the evidence on hand. In view of the fact that the claims of each individual’s grievance have been met and in view of the nature of the seniority question in this case, no ruling will presently be made on this phase of the case.
Decision
Signed GEORGE W. TAYLOR, Umpire. June 30, 1941. |