|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. B-24 November 15, 1941
Request of Employee for Transfer
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet Oakland -- Case No. 2 "Man requests that he be transferred to repair department in place of new men being hired."
Umpire's Decision: Through paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941, Agreement, Management reserves the sole right to decide upon transfers of employees between jobs which carry the same rate of pay as long as personal prejudice or Union discrimination is not involved. Since these factors are not involved in the present case, the determination of a policy governing the transfer in question is designated by the National Agreement as the sole responsibility of Management. D's claim in the present case cannot, therefore, be upheld by the Umpire. (Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America -- C.I.O. -- Local 76 and General Motors Corporation -- Chevrolet -- Oakland Division – Case No. 2
The grievance in this case was filed by D. on June 9, 1941. It reads: "Man requests that he be transferred to repair department in place of new men being hired." A hearing on the matter was held in Oakland on October 29, 1941.
Nature of Case The claimant in this case has a seniority date of March 29, 1934 and is employed as an assembler on the motor line in the truck plant at $1.10 per hour. On several occasions, D. has requested a transfer to the repair department at a light repairman job where he feels he would have a better opportunity for advancement. The negotiated rate for light repairman is $1.10 per hour or the same rate that is paid the assemblers. During the past year, a number of new employees have been hired in the repair department. The availability of vacancies in the repair department has prompted the filing of the present grievance. Corporation Position Management has stated that D. was refused the transfer in question "because transfers of this nature, which do not involve a promotion, require the breaking in of two employees, whereas if a new employee is placed on the job it only involves the breaking in of one employee." In addition, management emphasizes "there has been a flood of requests from other employees on the assembly line to be transferred to the repair department and to the new car conditioning department." It is noted that many of the requests have come from employees with greater seniority than D. and all have been refused in order to avoid a dual training program and because "transfers of this nature tend to disrupt departmental seniority ratings particularly when an employee so transferred has greater seniority than the employees of the group to which he is being transferred." The Corporation contends that the transfer of employees is the sole responsibility of management as outlined by paragraph 63 of the National Agreement of June 3, 1941. It is maintained that in this case there has been no violation of the National Agreement and that the employee has not been discriminated against by management's refusal to transfer D. from the assembly line to the repair department. Union Contention The Union claims that D. is a qualified employee on the repair work and that his transfer as requested would not, therefore, precipitate an additional training problem. Nor would his transfer, according to the Union, result in a deluge of similar requests since many of the men would not be capable of doing these jobs. The Union also contends that Paragraph 63 does not give management the sole responsibility in making transfers because it also states, in part, "when ability, merit and capacity are equal, employees with the longest seniority will be given preference." Comments and Decision of the Umpire Paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement is applicable to the present issue. Its terms are quite clear. In that paragraph it is initially stated that "the transferring of employees is the sole responsibility of management." This responsibility must be exercised, however, within the two limits specifically set forth by the succeeding parts of the paragraph. One of these limits is that in the advancement of employees to higher paid jobs, "when ability, merit and capacity are equal, employees with the longest seniority will be given preference." Contrary to the Union contention, this part of the paragraph does not apply to the present issue which concerns a requested transfer between two jobs paying the same rate. The paragraph further provides that, as respects any transfers, "any claims of personal prejudice or any claims of discrimination for Union activity in connection with transfers may be taken up as grievances." No such claims of personal prejudice or of Union discrimination have been made in the present case. It is apparent that, under Paragraph 63, management has reserved the sole right to determine the policy that is to be followed in the making of transfers such as the one that is in question in the present issue where advancement to a higher rated job is not involved. A contrary interpretation would substantially modify Paragraph 63 which, as written, clearly reserves to management the sole responsibility for making transfers as long as the two previously mentioned requirements are met. It is emphasized that such requirements are not involved in this issue. Management cannot be denied the right, specifically reserved to it by Paragraph 63, of deciding upon the transfer policy to be applied in the present case. As stated at the hearing, the question at issue is actually an intra-plant personnel problem rather than of alleged contract violation. Granting that the widespread transfer of employees between jobs of the same rate is not conducive to efficient operations, it is also evident that judicious transferring of employees, where desired by the employee, can have beneficial results. Management seeks to fit the employee to the job and transfers can build up a more versatile work force. It is emphasized, therefore, that this decision does not preclude the transfers of employees between jobs that carry the same rate. A policy to be followed in such cases is, however, a personnel matter that must be worked out to meet the management needs in each plant. Decision Through Paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement, Management reserves the sole right to decide upon transfers of employees between jobs which carry the same rate of pay as long as personal prejudice or Union discrimination is not involved. Since these factors are not involved in the present case, the determination of a policy governing the transfer in question is designated by the National Agreement as the sole responsibility of Management. D.'s claim in the present case cannot, therefore, be upheld by the Umpire.
Signed GEORGE W. TAYLOR, UMPIRE. November 15, 1941. |