|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. B-44 December 5, 1941 Discharge of Employee
GRIEVANCE: Saginaw Steering Gear -- Case B-4 "That I have been unjustly discharged and am asking to be returned to my job with pay for time lost." Umpire's Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America -- C.I.O. -- Local 434 and General Motors Corporation -- Saginaw Steering Gear Division – Case No. B-4.
On September 23, 1941, a grievance was filed by B. which read: "That I have been unjustly discharged and am asking to be returned to my job with pay for time lost." A hearing on the matter was held in Detroit on November 26, 1941. Nature of Case and Basis of Disciplinary Action Employee B. was classified as "Automatic Screw Machine Operator—Second Class" and received a rate of $1.15 per hour. He was hired on October 27, 1936 and was discharged on September 22, 1941 with the following notation on his release slip: "Undependable employee. Absent and late an unreasonable number of times." In support of its discharge of B., management submitted a detailed record of B.'s irregularity in attendance for the full period of his employment. No amount of explanation by the Union can make B.'s record acceptable. The Union notes, however, that B. has been a committeeman and claims that performance of his various Union duties largely account for his irregularities. Such a claim lacks real merit. It is the primary responsibility of committeemen properly to perform their Union business while still meeting their primary obligations as an employee. Even when allowance is made for these irregular attendance entries which might be related to Union business, the record of B. still remains highly unsatisfactory. It is to be noted that whenever B. reported he was on "Union Business," his record was so marked and such items were not included as an attendance irregularity. The failure of B. to be reasonably regular in his attendance resulted in his being taken to the Personnel Office on several occasions in 1939 when he was warned that his services were unsatisfactory. In July 1939, he was given a disciplinary layoff and warned that "continuation of this carelessness on your part can only result in further disciplinary layoff." Later warnings were given in November 1940. that "if he reported late again he would not be allowed to go to work." This was followed by the same pattern of irregular attendance and repeated warnings. On July 15, 1941, B. was given a second disciplinary layoff of one week on the basis of "Unsatisfactory and Undependable Attendance." He filed a grievance on that penalty. In its disposition of the grievance at the Appeal hearing, management stated: "We also wish at this time to formally advise Mr. B. and the U.A.W. Shop Committee (of which Mr. B. is a member) in the interest of good collective bargaining that unless Mr. B. shows an immediate and complete improvement in his attendance and attitude toward his work, the next disciplinary action must of necessity be a complete separation." The above outlined warning was given on July 15, 1941. B.'s record then apparently improved because it discloses no irregularities in attendance until August 28, 1941. From that date until September 20, B. was absent on five occasions when he was reported sick and was also late on one occasion. On September 19, Mrs. B. phoned the plant at 11:45 P.M. and stated "that Mr. B. would not be in to work at midnight as he was sick." A member of the Personnel Department, who was sent to Mr. B.'s home, reports that "although he rapped on the door several times he was unable to get a response." A further check-up at 1:30 P.M. is said to have showed "Mr. B.'s car in the driveway and the lights in the house turned on." Management discharged B. as of September 22, 1941 on the ground that he was an "Undependable Employee." In the present grievance, B. appeals the discharge. Union Claim While readily admitting that B.'s attendance record has been unsatisfactory, the Union feels there has been "a studied attempt to make the record more damaging than the facts known to management would warrant." Certain questionable entries on the record were referred to by the Union in this connection. It is also contended that some of the entries used to show unjustified irregularity in attendance were undoubtedly for Union business. It is said that, prior to the June 3, 1941 Agreement, Committeemen were not required to notify management in writing of tardiness, absences, or leaving early for Union business and necessary arrangements were customarily made verbally, sometimes by telephone. The Union submits corroborative statements of other committeemen to substantiate this contention. Since B. worked on the "C" shift and since the Personnel Department closes at 5:00 P.M., this committeeman is said to have been frequently unable to give proper notice. The Union says B. would work on Union activities during the day and would, therefore, often be unable to report at midnight. It is also said that he was sometimes called to Detroit for early morning meetings which would necessitate his leaving work prior to the end of his shift. The Union expresses a belief that management "has taken advantage of this situation to build up a case against Mr. B. in regard to being tardy and sent when it has been necessary to fulfill the duties placed upon him by the U.A.W.-C.I.O." It is also suggested by the Union that "management discriminated against Mr. B. due to the fact that the records of the other shop committeemen in regard to being tardy and absent are comparable to Mr. B.'s and they have never received any warning and the management has never given said committee members any discriminatory layoffs." As respects the present discharge, the Union states that B.'s record showed a decided improvement since July 15, 1941. It is said that from August 28 until September 20, B. experienced unusual troubles because of his own illness and because of illness in his family which made it absolutely necessary for him to stay away from work, on a number of occasions, after first reporting such situations to management. It appears from B.'s appearance at First Aid, as well as from testimony supplied by B.'s physician, that all members of B.'s family suffered from influenza during this period. B. contends that on September 19, while visiting, he suffered a recurrence of the influenza symptoms. He says his wife called the plant and that he managed to get home by about 12:30 and says "I immediately went to bed and was only in bed for several minutes when my wife stated a car had driven up in front of the house. She said she had gone to the door and turned on the porch light and the car immediately drove away." B. now says the call was presumably from a member of the Personnel Department staff. The Union also protests the manner of B.'s discharge. On September 22, 1941, B. was met outside the gate by his foreman who said "I have your check in full and your clearance papers here, and I want your badge." B. says his request for a committeeman was denied because the foreman claimed there was none in the plant and because he had been fired. The Union maintains that management violated the agreement by adopting an arbitrary procedure to circumvent collective bargaining on its proposed disciplinary action. It is urged that such a procedure made it impossible for B. to tell his side of the story and meant that management had taken action without being aware of all the facts of the case. The Union now contends that B.'s discharge was not proper and protests management's alleged refusal to bargain collectively on the matter at the time the penalty was imposed or to discuss the case at the various steps of the Grievance Procedure. In its brief, the Union requests "a penalty commensurate with the circumstances" which it is contended "should not exceed a disciplinary layoff of 60 days." It is claimed that Mr. B. should be compensated for all time lost in excess of such a layoff. Corporation Position Management submits "it to be self-evident that this or any other plant could not operate if such an attendance record, as detailed above, was maintained by even a minority of its employee s." B.'s irregular attendance was particularly detrimental to efficient operations, states management, because he was assigned to operate three automatic screw machines. His irregularities have constantly upset the planning of this entire department and the Corporation has too frequently suffered the loss of use of valuable equipment. It is contended that the discharge of B. was proper and necessary for the efficient operation of the plant and that management exercised its responsibility in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 8 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement. Opinion and Decision of the Umpire As a committeeman representing the Union, B.'s attendance record unfortunately reflects no credit upon his organization. Such a representative can best set an example of interest in and loyalty to the Union purposes by combining zeal for Union business with a meeting of his obligations as an employee. It is the Umpire's considered opinion that, over a period of time, B. had sought to use his Union position to assume privileges that are not compatible with the proper meeting of his obligations as an employee of the company. One must recognize that the normal duties of a committeeman necessarily entail absences from work and some irregularities of working time. There is no intention of curtailing the proper performance of such necessary duties. On the other hand, B. has unquestionably gone entirely too far in assuming the right to work as he wills. Such conduct cannot be condoned. It is suggested that the International Union might well instruct its committeemen as to proper policy in this regard. The Umpire is impressed with the fact that B.'s record was particularly bad prior to July 15, 1941, on which date he received a warning that he would be discharged unless his attendance showed an immediate and complete improvement. It is important that, immediately following this warning, B.'s attendance record did show a decided improvement. There were no entries at all until August 28, when B. was absent because First Aid recommended it. He was also apparently absent for several days in September because of illness. If all of B.'s absences in September were actually justifiable because of illness, this employee must realize that management's patience with him was understandably exhausted as a result of his past record. There is a real doubt in the mind of the Umpire, moreover, as to whether the absences on September 18 and 20 were necessary. On the face of it, it appeared that B. might have merely developed a new type of excuse for his irregularities. It is necessary to realize, however, that after the July 15, 1941 warning, B. was entitled, by management's own terms, to a fair opportunity to fulfill the requirements of regular attendance. In appraising whether or not he met such requirements, he cannot be held accountable for illness which made it impossible for him to work. When this factor is taken into account, it must be concluded that B.'s attendance record since July 15, 1941 has been markedly improved. This is to his credit. The Umpire believes that this improvement of record was not fully taken into account by management which was simply exasperated with B. After having displayed much patience in the handling of the case, management then lost all patience. This resulted in B.'s discharge in a questionable manner. Employees are not fired out on the street and B.'s story might well have been heard by the Personnel Department which is expected to show almost infinite patience. The Umpire cannot absolve B. of all responsibility for his irregular attendance in September 1941. There is a doubt as respects the legitimacy of two of his absences and no doubt that he was careless in reporting 45 minutes late for work on September 19. These irregularities are not to be lightly treated in view of his previous record and warnings. On the other hand, he is to be credited with a decided improvement in his attendance record after July 15, 1941. In view of these circumstances, the Umpire feels that a disciplinary layoff was in order but that the discharge penalty should not have been invoked at this time. B. is to be reinstated as of December 15, 1941 without loss of seniority. The working time lost by him is to be considered as a disciplinary layoff occasioned by his irregularity in attendance. His continued employment naturally requires that B. develop an attendance record that is compatible with efficient operations and that irregularities for unnecessary personal reasons be eliminated. The International Union is urged to assume the responsibility for seeing to it that B. learns properly how to perform his Union duties without unnecessary interference with the performance of his job. Decision
Signed GEORGE W. TAYLOR, UMPIRE. December 5, 1941. |