|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. B-116 MARCH 9, 1942
Promotion Procedure
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet Norwood -- Cases B2-9 "We charge the Management with breaking the agreement (Par. 63) and are asking for back pay from this date."
Umpire's Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America -- C.I.O. -- Local 674 and General Motors Corporation -- Chevrolet-Norwood Division -- Cases B-2 to B-9.
On October 3, 1941, eight grievances were presented which read in common as follows: "We charge the management with breaking the agreement (Par. 63) and are asking for back pay from this date." A hearing was held on these combined grievances at Indianapolis on February 26, 1942.
Nature of Case The eight employees involved in the combined grievance herein considered, were employed in the new Car Conditioning Department (No. 81) at the Chevrolet-Norwood plant at the time the grievance was filed. The Light and Heavy Repair Department (No. 71) was in the same building as the New Car Conditioning Department, but was a separate department and a separate seniority group. Part of the work of the Light and Heavy Repair Department was to mount Cargo and Commercial bodies. On certain government work of this latter nature, increased schedules required additional men to mount cargo and commercial bodies in September, 1941. Four additional men were needed for this work and Management selected the four men in the Light and Heavy Repair Department who it considered were most worthy of promotion to higher paid jobs in their seniority group on the basis of their respective ability, merit, capacity, and seniority. The Union objects to the promotions, and claims that the eight men who signed the instant grievance were entitled to receive the promotions granted to the four men, as well as to other jobs made available subsequent to the date of the instant grievance. Union Claim The Union seeks to support its position that the men concerned in this grievance should have received promotions on two premises, only one of which is a part of the June 3, 1941 Agreement. In the first place it claims that an "understanding" existed between the Shop Committee and Management that if any higher rated jobs opened up, men in the New Car Conditioning Department would be given the first opportunity for promotion, after which men in certain other departments would be given the opportunity provided by the higher paid jobs. The Union maintains that most of the men in the New Car Conditioning Department were hired as mechanics, but had become sidetracked in a job that did not carry a very high rate. It was this reason, the Union claims, that caused the two parties to agree to move these men into higher paid operations at the first opportunity. The second premise on which the Union maintained the right to promotion of the eight men here concerned, is based on Provision 2 of the so-called O.P.M. agreement, dated October 2, 1941, and signed by representatives of the Union and Corporation. Provision 2 of that agreement reads, in part, as follows:
The Union maintains that the eight men who signed the instant grievance wanted to be shifted to defense work, had the mechanical ability to perform the work, and had the greatest seniority of those available for such work. The jobs to which the Union feels these men were entitled were paid at the rate of $1.10 per hour. Because they did not receive these jobs, the Union claims they should be reimbursed for the difference between their own rates and the rates they would have earned on the defense jobs, for the total hours they would have received had they been on such defense jobs. The Union notes finally, that while only four jobs were open in the Light and Heavy Repair Department just prior to the date of the instant grievance, additional jobs developed in the department shortly thereafter that should have properly been filled by the eight men who signed this grievance. Corporation Position The Corporation maintains that it has been the recognized practice at this plant to give the first opportunities for advancement to openings on higher rated jobs, to employees on lower rated jobs in the same department, provided they are capable of doing the work. This practice had been followed previously in the Light and Heavy Repair Department, Management notes, and many employees have received temporary and permanent promotions in such a manner. Management maintains that the special understanding that had been reached as respects the men in the New Car Conditioning Department was to the effect that, as jobs opened up in any department, if men in that department capable of doing the work were not available, then men in the New Car Conditioning Department would be given the opportunity to qualify for the promotion before the men in any other department. In the present case, Management maintains that the men selected to fill the four available openings in the Light and Heavy Repair Department were selected entirely within the procedure noted. Management denies that the so-called O.P.M. agreement supersedes the existing Agreement as respects method of promotion. In fact, Management notes, Provision No. 7 of the O.P.M. agreement specifically removes any portion of that agreement from the provisions of the Grievance Procedure of the June 3, 1941 Agreement. Provision No. 7, as cited by Management, reads as follows:
For the reasons noted, then, Management contends that the promotions contested in this grievance were in conformance with the recognized practice at this plant, and were not in violation of any of the terms of the Agreement dated June 3, 1941.
Conclusions and Decision of the Umpire The issue in this case is whether or not Management has acted within the terms of the June 3, 1941 Agreement in promoting certain men to higher paid jobs in the Light and Heavy Repair Department, instead of the eight men who signed the instant grievance. All of the evidence available in this case clearly supports the conclusion that promotion practice at this plant has been along departmental and seniority group lines. First opportunities for advancement have obviously been given within the department in which openings on higher rated jobs occurred, when employees qualified to do the job have been available. It is clear, also, that a recent understanding has been reached that if men are not available within a department to qualify for higher paid jobs in that department, first opportunity for advancement will be given to employees in the New Car Conditioning Department. The promotion of the four men within the Light and Heavy Repair Department was made directly in conformance with the practice noted above. In its selection, Management gave proper recognition of the factors of ability, merit, capacity, and seniority, and thereby conformed with Paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement. It is held, therefore, that failure of Management to promote any of the eight signators to the instant grievance to the four available jobs in the Light and Heavy Repair Department, was not in violation of any provision of the June 3, 1941 Agreement. The citation by the Union of Provision 2 of the so called O.P.M. Agreement, in support of the right of the eight men here involved to promotion to defense work, is quite obviously outside of the jurisdiction of the Umpire. Provision 7 of that same agreement, as cited by Management, clearly removes any question arising under that agreement from the purview of the regular grievance procedure established by the terms of the June 3, 1941 Agreement. Inasmuch as Management has not violated past practice or any provision of the June 3, 1941 Agreement, the Union's claim for back pay for the eight men, whose grievances have been herein combined, is held to be improper and is denied.
Decision
Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR., UMPIRE. March 9, 1942. |