|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. B-204 August 28, 1942
Employee Transfer Under Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: Pontiac Motor -- Case B-79 "Violation of Paragraph 63 of June 1941 Agreement. Not giving seniority enough consideration in promoting job setter."
Umpire's Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America -- C.I.O. -- Local 653 and General Motors Corporation -- Pontiac Motor Division -- Case B-79
On March 13, 1942, Employee R. presented a grievance which reads: "Violation of Paragraph 63 of June 1941 Agreement. Not giving seniority enough consideration in promoting jobsetter." A hearing on this grievance was held in Detroit on August 20, 1942.
Nature of Case On March 13, 1942, Employee W. was promoted to the position of a jobsetter in Department 460 of the Pontiac Motor Division. Employee R. presented the instant grievance claiming that the promotion was made without full consideration of the factors of ability, merit, capacity and seniority as required by Paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement. Initially the grievance was discussed only as respects Employee R., but at the later steps of the grievance procedure consideration was given by both parties to other available employees in the same group and department. The Union contends that Management did not give proper weight to the correct determining factors for a sufficiently large number of men to arrive at the decision to promote W. to the jobsetter vacancy. The Union requests, therefore, that this job be declared vacant, and that it be filled with proper consideration of the factors included in Paragraph 63 of the Agreement. Union Contention When the General Foreman of the department concerned in this promotion was asked by a representative of the Shop Committee as to how the jobsetter was selected, the Union states the foreman replied that, "as long as he picked what he considered the best man that seniority was not a factor to be considered." Under such a procedure, the Union contends that the foreman merely picks out who he thinks is the best man, and no consideration is given to other men whose ability, merit and capacity may be approximately equal to that of the promoted man. In the present instance, the Union strongly urges that at least a half dozen men in the group in which W. worked were equal to W. in ability, merit and capacity. It contends that any one of these six men should have been promoted in preference to W. because they were equal to him in ability, merit and capacity, and in addition had greater seniority. To support its contention in this particular, the Union presented data which showed that in W.'s department, out of a total of twenty-eight men of greater seniority than W., twenty-five had more machine experience than W. The Union further notes that five of these men were transferred to Department 460 before W., and seven more of them were transferred in the same month as W. Four or five of the men cited by the Union as having much greater machine experience than W. (in several instances three to four times as great) are noted as having a much wider variety of experience than W. as respects the types of machines operated. The abilities of particular employees in the group in which W. worked were cited by the Union to support its conclusion that Employee W. did not stand "head and shoulders" above his group, but was merely a good worker who was approximately equal to at least a half dozen other available employees. Management's claim that W. worked on virtually every machine in his group finds little objection from the Union (hones, jobbers and deep hold drills are set up by the operators), but it does maintain that on several machines this work by W. involved nothing more than a few hours that he was employed as a helper. The time spent by this employee in the new department (#460) is contended by the Union to have been insufficient to warrant the weight attributed to it by Management as a major point in the selection of W. for promotion. A further contention of the Union in this instance is that Management did not consider a sufficiently large number of men as available for the promotion to jobsetter. Only the men in a small group and on one shift were given any consideration, the Union maintains, and out of a total of 135 men in the department, only seven of the 47 on the same shift as W. were given any consideration whatsoever. By limiting the selection to such a small group of employees on a single shift, the Union claims that Management did not follow the practice it had adopted in several past promotions by extending selection beyond a single department and shift (Decision B-55). Corporation Position Management points out that W. was employed in that part of Department 460 supervised by Foreman R., and that since the jobsetting vacancy occurred in that area, the men supervised by Foreman R. were the first considered. Since these men had the best knowledge of the machines to be set up in that area on that shift, Management states that, "Supervision reviewed the ability, merit and capacity of these employees and determined that W. was the best qualified of any employee in the group." Employee W. is noted by Management as having been one of the first fourteen employees assigned to Department 460 (he was assigned on August 22, 1941), and in addition Management points out that he worked in the particular group where the jobsetter vacancy existed longer than any other employee. Furthermore, Management urges that, "he had displayed considerable aptitude for machine work and possessed the ability to move from one machine to another with a minimum amount of training and break-in time on new operations." Because of his adaptability, Management states he was used on various jobs and has operated practically all of the machines in the department. His versatility and ability as a machine operator is contended by Management to be evidenced by several situations in which he was able to produce much greater quantities of various war products than other men in his group. While Management admits that all promotions are not necessarily made within a particular department and shift, it contends that most promotions are made in this manner at this plant. In W.'s department and shift, Management notes that W. was forty-seventh in line of seniority as of March 13, 1942, but that 40 of the men who preceded him on the seniority list had been in the department less than three months when W. was promoted. (Employee W. had been in Department 460 for a trifle less than seven months at the time of his promotion.) Within the particular group and shift in which W. was working at the time, then, Management contends no one had demonstrated their ability to fulfill the duties of the jobsetter on the particular machines there in place as conclusively as had Employee W. Management urges that the Shop Committee at this plant has always contended that seniority is the primary element to be considered in advancing employees to higher rated jobs. In this connection, Management observes, "The Committee has frequently stated... that Management should start at the top of the seniority list and ask each employee in the order of his seniority whether or not he wants the available higher rated job." Management argues that it is not obliged to select the employee with the longest service who is capable of doing the job. Such a conclusion is unwarranted, claims Management, and is not supported by any past decision of the Umpire. Management points out that it has already been ruled that seniority only becomes an element for consideration in the advancement of employees when ability, merit and capacity are equal. The evaluation of the ability, merit and capacity of W. is concluded by Management to have placed him "head and shoulders" above those in his group and on his shift, and to have warranted his promotion within the meaning of Paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement.
Conclusions and Decision of the Umpire The promotion of W. in this case must be considered in conjunction with Paragraph 63 of the Agreement dated June 3, 1941. This paragraph reads in part as follows:
If the local Union has taken any position of the nature cited by Management, to the effect that the employee of greatest seniority who is capable of fulfilling a particular job and wishes to try for the job should be promoted, it disregards entirely the wording of Paragraph 63, and the several decisions which have been issued interpreting that paragraph. The first factors that must be considered are the ability, merit and capacity of particular employees. If an evaluation of those combined factors does not result in the determination of one employee as standing "head and shoulders" above the rest, then past decisions have already indicated that the employees whose ability, merit and capacity are determined to be approximately equal may be grouped together, and from this group the employee with the greatest seniority should be promoted. It is only through such a procedure that proper weight can be given to seniority. The promotion of W., since there was no grouping of employees of approximately the same ability, merit and capacity, can only be held to have been in conformance with Paragraph 63 of the Agreement, if W. clearly stood "head and shoulders" above all other employees who should have been considered available for the promotion. One factor which apparently weighed very heavily in the selection of W. for promotion was the small amount of extra time he had spent in Department 460 over other men who were transferred to this new Department a month or two later. This additional time permitted W. to gain brief experience on the operation of most of the machines in his group, but it is noted that this experience in several instances extended no further than to allow for a cursory knowledge as to how a particular machine operated. It would seem, therefore, that the few weeks of additional experience of W., plus his ability to secure considerable production on a few machines, was used by supervision as the determinants for W.'s promotion. There is little evidence of any real evaluation of other factors such as length of machine experience, variety of machines operated, productive ability on machines operated prior to the production of war materials, etc. Without an evaluation of such factors for the available employees, it is difficult to see how any real attention could have been paid to the elements of ability, merit and capacity as is required by Paragraph 63 of the Agreement. Still another shortcoming in the promotion of W. was the limitation of the number of men who were considered by Management as available for promotion to jobsetter. While the newness of the Department may have indicated the advisability of limiting the selection to the men who had worked in this Department, there is little to support the limitation to a particular shift. Such a limitation is not entirely in conformance with past practice, and leads to the conclusion that, in making its selection, supervision looked no further after the foreman had decided that a particular employee on the shift he supervised was qualified to fill a job available on that shift. In the limitation of the selection to a small group of employees on a single shift, then, Management failed to make the choice of an employee for promotion in a proper manner. The available evidence causes the Umpire to conclude that the promotion of W. was not made with proper consideration to the factors of ability, merit and capacity of available employees, and the selection was incorrectly limited to employees on a single shift. It seems quite evident that W. did not stand "head and shoulders" above all of the employees who should have been considered available for promotion to jobsetter. It must be held, therefore, that the promotion of W. was not in compliance with Paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement. While the Umpire cannot determine who should have been promoted in the place of W., since the element of choice rests only with Management, proper compliance with Paragraph 63 can be effectuated by the selection by Management of several men on all of the three shifts in Department 460, whose ability, merit and capacity are considered as approximately equal. From this group, Management can then select the man with the greatest seniority for promotion, and can thereby fulfill the requirements of Paragraph 63. The position of jobsetter held by W. shall be considered as a vacancy on September 15, 1942, and shall be filled in a manner to conform with Paragraph 63. In so doing, however, no weight shall be given to W.'s experience as a jobsetter that he has gained since the date of his improper promotion.
Decision
Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR., UMPIRE August 28, 1942 |