|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. B-55 December 31, 1941
Transfer of Employee Under Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: Pontiac Motor -- Case B-24 "At least five (5) men in 791 want the opportunity of having the job of die-setter in 791-A3. They are breaking in a press operator from another Dept. (790) on this job."
Umpire's Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America -- C.I.O. -- Local 653 and General Motors Corporation -- Pontiac Motors Division -- Case B-24 The following employee grievance was presented by J. on August 20, 1941: "At least five (5) men in 791 want the opportunity of having the job of die-setter in 791-A3. They are breaking in a press operator from another Dept. (790) on this job." A hearing on the matter was held in Detroit on December 9, 1941.
Nature of Case and Claims of Parties A vacancy on the die-setter job in Department 791-A3 of the Sheet Metal Plant was filled on August 17, 1941 by the transfer of Employee C. who had been a punch press operator in Department 790 and who holds a seniority date of March 9, 1934. The grievance in the present case was filed by Employee J. whose seniority date is July 10, 1933. None of the other employees in Department 791-A3 have greater seniority than C.; this is admitted in the Union Statement of Unadjusted Grievance. Management explains the assignment of C. to the die-setter's job by noting that for the past two years this employee has worked with the die-setters and, in the absence of one of them, has often set dies himself. It is said that "in this work he showed interest, initiative and adaptability superior to that of employee J. who had no experience in die-setting." Management takes that position that "Employees who are selected as die-setters must have several qualifications beside the ability to break in as a die-setter. As practically all foremen in the sheet metal plant are selected from the die-setter group, consideration is given by supervision, before a die-setter is selected, as to whether or not he has the potential qualifications of a foreman." Under Paragraph 63, it is contended, management has the sole right to judge such qualifications. Before assigning C. to the vacancy in question, management states the ability, capacity and merit of all employees in Department 791 were reviewed and compared with the resultant conclusion "that no one in Department 791, including J. was qualified to fill the vacancy." Although J.'s seniority date is earlier than that of C. management notes that Paragraph 63 makes seniority a determining factor in advancement only if ability, merit and capacity are equal. In line with its conclusion that C.'s qualifications re superior to those of J., management maintains that J.'s seniority has no bearing on the case. The Corporation contends that C.'s promotion was in conformance with Paragraphs 8 and 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement. The Union maintains that, at this plant, it has been the practice to make promotions from within a department. In the present case, it is insisted that since any one of a number of employees in Department 791 was fully capable of taking the die-setting job, there was no need to deviate from established practice. It is said that some of the men in the group have had experience as Die Setter Helpers. Although the Union maintained that the promotion of C. was improper under Paragraph 63, an examination of the case shows that this particular contention was somewhat subsidiary to the principal claim that the transfer was out of order because it was inter-departmental. In this regard, the Union claims "the oldest capable man in 791 should have been offered the job." The Union notes it would not complain if an experienced Die Setter had been transferred from another department to Department 791, but feels it is inequitable so to transfer an inexperienced man to the higher rated job who has less experience on the machine in the department than those there employed. If management felt that it was necessary to go outside the department, however, the Union contends other qualified employees with greater seniority than C. should have received the assignment under Paragraph 63. It is emphasized by the Union that management actually selected C. for the job principally because most of the supervision is selected from the Die Setters group. This would imply that the advancement of employees to die setting jobs is subject to the same considerations as are involved in the selection of foremen. In the opinion of the Union, such a basis for promotion to die-setting vacancies is contrary to the terms of Paragraph 63 which specifies other qualifications as being important in the making of promotions. The use of different measures means, says the Union, that other employees were not being given the consideration to which they were entitled under Paragraph 63 of the Agreement and in line with past practice. The Union requests "that C. be returned to Department 790 and that J. as the next qualified man in Department 791 be given the job of Die Setter." It is emphasized that J. not only has a greater seniority than C. but has worked in the department since 1934, has had some Die Setter Helper experience, and has worked on practically all the machines and presses in the department.
Comments and Decision of the Umpire Inter-Departmental Transfer The principal claim of the grievance, evident from negotiations at earlier steps of the grievance procedure, is that the promotion of C. violated an established practice of making promotions on an intra-departmental basis as far as practical. The inter-department transfer which is involved in this case may properly be considered as an exception to the general rule, encompassed within the rule, and does not, therefore, institute any change in the existing procedure. The practice to which the Union refers cannot possibly be interpreted as prohibiting each and every inter-departmental transfer. The Umpire cannot revoke the promotion of C. on the ground that it was improper solely because it was an inter-department transfer. "Ability, Merit, and Capacity" The second claim made by the Union is that employee J. had greater qualifications, as defined by Paragraph 63, and was entitled to the promotion in preference to C. It is contended that such qualifications of J. were improperly evaluated because C. was selected on other grounds entirely. In appraising this contention, the Umpire is impressed with the fact that management did make the transfer in question as a phase of training an employee for foremanship responsibilities. The job to be filled, therefore, was not just a diesetter's job but a die-setter's job that would contribute to the training of a supervisor. An important management function is to train supervisors and foremen. This task must be properly performed if the business of the Corporation is to be efficiently operated. It is evident that a prospective foreman must ordinarily be given training on various production jobs. In the present case, management has stated that "the employee selected is not to remain as a die-setter, this job being assigned as a step in his training for eventual foremanship." Management cannot be denied the right to train foremen by a reasonable program and in the ordinary manner. This is a vital part of the proper management of a business. When transfers of employees are directly related to this training process, full recognition must be accorded that part of Paragraph 8 which provides, in part, "The right to... promote... and to maintain... efficiency of employees is the sole responsibility of the Corporation... the methods, processes and means of manufacturing are solely and exclusively the responsibility of the Corporation." Management must train supervisors and foremen and in carrying out this responsibility it has no alternative but to assign them to various jobs as a part of the training program. The necessary transfers cannot possibly be affected by Paragraph 63 since, in such cases, management must be accorded the right to make its own evaluation of the "ability, merit and capacity" of employees eligible to be transferred to such a training job as distinct from a regular production job. On this basis, it is held that J. cannot be given consideration as having equal or greater qualifications than C., as outlined in Paragraph 63. While fully recognizing management's right to select and to train its supervisors and foremen, it would be unreasonable to conclude that promotions to every die-setting vacancy in the department in question should be related to the selection of a potential foreman. Such a policy would not only close an important avenue to promotion to employees not considered as "foremanship material" but it would give an impermanence to assignments to the die-setters which seems to be incompatible with the importance of this work. In other words, every die-setter is not a foreman in the making. The present decision is not to be construed, therefore, as establishing a precedence for the future filling of each and every die-setting vacancy. Decision
Signed GEORGE W. TAYLOR, UMPIRE. December 31, 1941. |