|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. B-52 December 30, 1941
Transfer Under Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet Gear & Axle -- Case B-79 "I charge Company with violation of National Agreement P.P. 63 by rating No. 130416 as reliefman when he does not have the seniority I do and I too have been rated as a reliefman and can do the work."
Umpire's Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America -- C.I.O. -- Local 235 and General Motors Corporation -- Chevrolet Gear & Axle Division -- Detroit -- Case B-79.
This case concerns a grievance, presented by Employee M. on August 15, 1941, which reads:
A hearing on the matter was held in Detroit on December 8, 1941. Nature of Case On August 4, 1941, a reliefman vacancy occurred on the first shift of Plant No. 3 in Group No. 20 which includes the Spring Housing job and the King Pin Support job. Employee T. was selected to fill the vacancy. The present grievance represents a claim of Employee M. that, in accordance with Paragraph 63, his seniority and previous experience entitle him to the reliefman's job in question. Management notes that the Spring Housing and the King Pin Support jobs have not been in regular production since 1938 and are now operated in order to supply service parts. Employees are used interchangeably between the two operations and the reliefman is also required to be able to work on both types of work. The relief job in question was not in operation at the time of the discussions of the case in the earlier steps of the grievance procedure, but the Union "requests that M. be placed in line for the job so that when work is resumed he will be made the reliefman." The previous experience of T. on this work includes service as a reliefman on the King Pin Support job when it was in production as a separate job. He has had other service as a reliefman in Group No. 20 but no significant experience as a reliefman on the Spring Housing job. Altogether T. has had about twenty months' experience as a reliefman and he has a seniority date of 11/21/30. The claimant in this case, Employee M., served as a reliefman on the Spring Housing job when it was in regular production but has apparently had no experience as a reliefman on the King Pin Support job. His experience as a reliefman totals approximately eleven months and his seniority date is 3/12/24. Corporation Position Management is of the opinion that T. has better qualifications than M. to fill the reliefman vacancy. Of the 16 machines included in the King Pin Support job, T. is said to have set up 14 and to have operated all sixteen. Of the 17 operations on the Spring Housing job, T. has set up 15 and has operated 16 of them. Management has weighed T.'s experience which is said to provide him with better qualifications as compared to M. who, it is claimed, has not set up any of the sixteen machines in the King Pin Support job and has only operated eight of them. Of the Spring Housing machines, management reports that M. has had set-up experience on ten and operating experience on thirteen of them. The selection of an employee for transfer to the vacancy in question had to take into account, states management, the necessity for interchanging employees between two types of work. It is said, therefore, that the best qualified candidate for the reliefman's job would be the one who was most familiar with the various jobs. T.'s longer and wider experience as a reliefman on both the King Pin Support job and later in Group No. 20 is appraised by management as giving him superior qualifications, as compared to M., for the job to which he was promoted. The selection of T., contends management, was a proper exercise of management's responsibility as outlined in Paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement. Union Contention The Union, in its brief, recognized that the relief job in question requires a considerable versatility to do various operations and that only a few men have such all-around experience because the jobs are for past model service rather than for current model production. It is contended by the Union, however, that M. was not only better qualified to fill the reliefman's vacancy but had greater seniority than T. In its brief, the Union expresses its belief that, under Paragraph 63, "when a promotion is to be made, the agreement implies that the employee with the longest seniority shall be the first considered and in the event he can do the job adequately, he is to be given the promotion without the personality comparisons usually made in promoting men." The Union contends, then, that M. was entitled to selection for the reliefman's vacancy and that he should "be placed in line for the job so that when work resumed he will be made the reliefman."
Comments and Decision of the Umpire Paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement provides, in part, "The transferring of employees is the sole responsibility of the management. 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." There have been marked difficulties in the effort satisfactorily to apply this clause. It is difficult to define, let alone evaluate, such intangible factors as "merit and capacity." The Union certainly errs in its present argument, however, that the clause specifies preference to the employee with most seniority and gives him a right to promotion "in the event he can do the job adequately." Since such an interpretation would give importance to seniority irrespective of relative "ability and capacity," the approach of the local Union is obviously not in accordance with Paragraph 63 as written. Under Paragraph 63 seniority becomes the determining factor in a selection for promotion only as between employees whose "ability, merit and capacity are equal." In order to attribute a reasonable meaning to the clause, it must be recognized that (1) the relative ability, merit and capacity of individual employees cannot be precisely evaluated; (2) these factors in one employee's work will be differently rated by different supervisors because their appraisal involves personal judgment; (3) seniority is, however, a definite factor that can readily be measured; (4) in making a selection for certain promotions, under this clause, management may properly proceed by designating several men whose ability, merit and capacity are considered by management to be equal. The seniority factor can then be applied in making the choice of the individual who is to be promoted. In considering employees for promotion under Paragraph 63, it may be that an employee's record is so outstanding that he is "head and shoulders" above any other possible candidate. In such cases, he is entitled to promotion irrespective of seniority and, if necessary, management should have no difficulty in pointing out his superior qualifications. Unless such an individual is available for promotion, Paragraph 63 can properly be effectuated by management's selection of several employees who are competent to fill the job and whose "ability, merit and capacity" are considered by management to be approximately equal. From the several candidates adjudged by management to be approximately equal in "ability, merit and capacity," it would then become possible to effectuate Paragraph 63 by selecting for promotion that individual in the group who has the greatest seniority. Such a procedure follows Paragraph 63 in recognizing that qualifications of several employees are often approximately equal and in recognizing the compelling importance of seniority in such cases. The Umpire must assume that the parties sought to give compelling importance to seniority as respects certain promotions or Paragraph 63 would have been written in different terms. It is emphasized that, under such a procedure, management retains the sole responsibility for designating the employees who are to be promoted. How would such a procedure be applied to the facts of the present case? Management has made its choice as between T. and M. principally on the basis of the relative number of machines on the relief job, that had been previously operated by each of these men: To be sure, this is a factor that is important because of the nature of the job. The relative ability of these men in operating such jobs is, however, a considerably different factor and the mentioned experience has little to do with merit and capacity. It is the opinion of the Umpire that the evidence does not show that T. had the outstanding "ability, merit and capacity" for the job in question. It is to be noted that the reliefman job is not now being operated. This provides an opportunity to apply the above-outlined procedure when it resumes operation. At that time, the job should again be considered as a vacancy. If a review of the qualifications of the candidates for the job shows that one is "head and shoulders" above all others, not only in experience but in ability, merit and capacity, it is in conformance with Paragraph 63 for management to assign him to the job. If such an individual is not available, management may designate two or three employees who are competent to take the assignment and who are considered by management as being approximately equal as respects ability, merit and capacity. The individual assigned to the vacancy should be the one in the group who holds the greatest seniority.
Decision
Signed GEORGE W. TAYLOR, UMPIRE. December 30, 1941. |