|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. B-68 JANUARY 12, 1942
Employee Transfer Under Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: Guide Lamp -- Case B-1 "P.C. -- 390015. Hired in Production 9-9-35. Apprentice -- 4-29-36. Die Repair -- 12-8-40. This man was made lathe leader regardless of qualifications of others."
Umpire's Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America -- C.I.O. -- Local 663 and General Motors Corporation -- Guide Lamp Division -- Case B-1.
A grievance signed by Employee F., dated August 5, 1941, reads as follows: "P.C. -- 390015. Hired in Production 9-9-35. Apprentice -- 4-29-36. Die Repair -- 12-8-40. This man was made a lathe leader regardless of qualifications of others." A hearing on this grievance was held in Indianapolis on December 17, 1941.
Nature of Case On August 4, 1941, Management promoted Employee F. C. from a job of die repairman to that of a Lathe Leader. The promotion was to the second shift in the tool and die room and to a job which Management claims did not exist prior to August 4, 1941 when there was not a sufficient number of lathe operators to require the appointment of a leader. Employee F. C. had considerably less seniority than a number of lathe operators and it was felt by the Union that these other men also possessed greater qualifications for the leader job. The Union singles out Employee F. F. as having exceptional qualifications for the promotion because, the Union avers, he had previously been acting as the Leader of the second shift lathe operators and had been tacitly recognized as such by the workers and by supervision. The Union, therefore, protests the promotion of Employee F. C. and contends that Employee F. F. should have been advanced to the Leader job. Union Claim The Union claims that, in order to conform with Paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement, an employee in the lathe classification with the necessary skill and experience should have been promoted to the opening of Lathe Leader rather than a Die Repairman who had little skill and experience as a lathe operator. The Union holds that the man who received the promotion did not possess nearly the ability, merit and capacity of Employee F. F. who has actually had considerable experience in performing the job in question. F. F. not only acted as leader for the group for approximately five years, contends the Union, but he also operated a lathe. Since he was only paid the operator's rate, and because the dual job represented too great a responsibility, F. F. recently requested that he be relieved of his responsibility as a leader. There is no reason for concluding, says the Union, that F. F. does not wish to be a leader; his mentioned reaction is said to have been motivated by a desire to receive either the classification and rate of a Leader, or to be considered only as a lathe operator. The Union further emphasizes that Employee F. C., who received the promotion, had never had any experience in a tool room prior to serving his apprenticeship and that his experience on lathe work was limited to approximately two months which he served during the course of his apprenticeship. The Union points out that at the time of his promotion, Employee F. C. was classified as a die repairman and was receiving the minimum rate for that classification. His experience is so limited, the Union claims, that he is unable to instruct workers who have been upgraded from production to toolroom lathe operation. A further contention of the Union is that Employee F. C. received much of his training during his apprenticeship from the men who have since been placed under his leadership. In the Union's opinion this state of affairs does not lend itself to a fully cooperative attitude between the operators and their leader. The Union claims that heretofore Management has stressed experience in the matter of promotion but in this instance it has used less tangible factors as a means of supporting its selection. The considerations used by Management in rating the various men who were eligible for the promotion, in the Union's opinion, are in too many instances irrelevant and outside the provisions of Paragraph 63 of the Agreement. The Union concludes that experience has been given far too little weight in this promotion. For the reasons cited, the Union holds that Management was entirely illogical in its promotion of Employee F. C. and that in keeping with Paragraph 63 of the Agreement dated June 3, 1941, should have promoted Employee F. F. The Union, therefore, requests the Umpire to advance Employee F. F. to the classification of a Lathe Leader. Corporation Position The Corporation holds that the promotion of Employee F. C. followed Management's careful consideration of the seniority, merit, ability and capacity of all the lathe operators and other men in the tool room. It was only after careful investigation, Management claims, that Employee F. C. was determined "to have more ability, merit and capacity to instruct and lead other men than any lathe operator with more seniority." Management contends that Employee F. C. had advanced rapidly over a short period of time and, in its opinion, "possessed the most potential value." Management has presented an appraisal of various employees in order to show why it rated other lathe operators as having less ability, merit and capacity than F. C. As respects Employee F. F., Management stressed the fact that he was not considered for the promotion because he had previously requested his Foreman "to relieve him of all responsibility other than that of lathe work." Management claims, however, that it had never considered Employee F.F., as a Lathe Leader although supervision and the lathe operators on the second shift admittedly considered him as the "Number One" lathe operator. Management, in making its decision on this promotion, was quite satisfied with the experience of Employee F. C. on lathe operation during the time that he worked as a die repairman. Management claims that in this promotion, experience could not be given much weight because there were so few men with experience to fill the job. It was for this reason, Management states, that other factors had to be given considerable importance in making the choice for promotion. In the Corporation's opinion, the choice of Employee F. C. was entirely within the provisions of Paragraph 63 of the Agreement dated June 3, 1941.
Observations and Decision of the Umpire Management has readily admitted that claimant F.F. was not considered as a possible candidate for the leader job because "he had previously requested to be relieved of such responsibilities." It appears to the Umpire, however, that Management thereby erroneously interpreted F. F.'s attitude toward leader responsibilities. This employee had been acting as a leader of a relatively small group of employees but had also been required to operate a lathe. There is no doubt, moreover, that he did a pretty good job. As the number of lathe operators increased, however, F. F. understandably felt that he could not properly be held responsible for leading while still operating a lathe and while receiving an operator's rate. His protest against such a job assignment cannot reasonably be considered as a waiver of his claim for promotion. Management's seizure of his statement as a means of excluding F. F. from consideration for promotion was not reasonable since it completely disregarded F. F.'s long experience in acting as a leader, his acceptance by the employees and by supervision as a leader, and his cooperative attitude in past years in assuming leadership responsibilities without any added compensation. In contrast to F.F.'s evident qualifications for the job in question, F. C. was quite inexperienced as a lathe operator or as a leader. Even if he did seem to Management to possess "potential," his ability and displayed capacity was unquestionably inferior to F. F. Although Paragraph 63 gives Management the sole responsibility for transferring employees, it specifically provides that in exercising this responsibility 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." This part of Paragraph 63 would be entirely meaningless if it were to be held that F. C.'s promotion to a higher paid job was proper and that F. F. could be excluded from consideration on the basis mentioned above. It is all too apparent that F. F.'s qualifications were not taken into account simply because Management did not consider him as a possible candidate for the job in question. It is the conviction of the Umpire that F. F. should not be deprived of consideration for the vacancy in question and that Management erred in filling the vacancy without consideration of F. F.'s qualifications. It is ruled, therefore, that the promotion of F. C. was not in compliance with Paragraph 63 because it was not made with regard for F. F.'s rights under that part of the Paragraph which provides 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." The facts do not show that F. C. had greater qualifications that F. F. At most it could only be determined that they had approximately equal qualifications as respects "ability, merit and capacity." In such a case, F. F.'s greater seniority would entitle him to the promotion. There can be no reasonable doubt on the point that F. C.'s promotion was not proper under Paragraph 63 and it cannot be approved. Such an approval would signify that neither relative qualifications nor relative seniority had any bearing on promotions under Paragraph 63.
Decision
Signed GEORGE W. TAYLOR, UMPIRE. January 12, 1942. |