|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. B-265 FEBRUARY 10, 1943
Promotion Under Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet Flint -- Case B-236 "Group charge Management with violation of National Agreement, Paragraph 63, in the transferring of men to armor plate welding. Request this violation be stopped and men affected be paid all pay due them due to this violation."
Umpire's Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America -- C.I.O. -- Local 659 and General Motors Corporation -- Chevrolet-Flint Division -- Case B-236
The grievance in this case, which was initiated as a group grievance on August 26, 1942, reads as follows: "Group charge Management with violation of National Agreement, Paragraph 63, in the transferring of men to armor plate welding. Request this violation be stopped and men affected be paid all pay due them due to this violation." This grievance was signed by Employee W.M., but through the various steps of the grievance procedure it has been argued only as respects Employee W.M.'s claim that he should have been promoted to a welder leader classification instead of Employees L.H. and J.M. As presented to the Umpire, then, the grievance is confined entirely to the question of the right of Employee W.M. to promotion in the place of these two other employees. A hearing on this matter was held in Flint on January 15, 1943. Nature of Case Early in 1942, Management of the Chevrolet-Flint Division found it necessary to set up a plan for the training of a group of supervisors, leaders, and welders to perform productive welding operations on a new war product. The records of all employees in the Press Metal Department were studied, and groups were selected on the basis of their ability and past experience for training as potential foremen and leaders for the new welding operation. The men who were selected as potential foremen and leaders (including L.H. and J.M. but excluding W.M.) began their training in welding. Early in April, 1942, additional employees who had been selected from applications for welding jobs were placed in training as potential productive welders. Employee W.M., who was one of this group, began his training on June 23, 1942. The employees who had been selected as potential foremen, leaders and welders finished their welding training at various times and many of them were placed in other jobs pending the beginning of productive welding. On August 3, 1942, the particular war product requiring the use of the new welders was placed in production and a group of the men who had been trained as potential foremen and leaders (these men had been performing experimental welding from the date they qualified as welders) were placed in a new classification of "Welder Leaders" to begin the productive operations. Later, other men were placed in the leader classification and still other newly trained welders were placed on regular production welding work. On August 26, 1942, Employee W.M. filed the present grievance, but not until October 13, 1942, was it made clear that he was protesting the promotion of Employees L.H. and J.M. to the leader classification that had been effectuated on August 3, 1942. In presenting the instant grievance, then, the Union takes the position that Management failed to give proper recognition to the relative ability, merit and capacity of Employee W.M. as compared to these two other employees when it promoted these employees to the leader classification. Union Claim The Union's major contention in this case is that inasmuch as all of the men who were placed on the welding work were trained at about the same time they should all have had approximately the same relative ability, merit and capacity. If this contention is supported, as the Union believes it should, the Union reasons that promotions to the leader classification should have been made entirely on the basis of seniority. Any additional training that may have been given to the men who were considered as potential leaders is reasoned by the Union to have been training which should have been made available to the welders on the basis of seniority since they all had approximately the same ability, merit and capacity as welders. In particular, the Union insists that Employee W.M. should have been considered as possessing the same relative ability, merit and capacity as Employees L.H. and J.M. because of the fact that he had experience as a leader from 1931 to 1934. The versatility which W.M. showed in the many jobs which he held from 1934 to 1942 is cited by the Union as an additional reason why he should have been selected for promotion to the leader classification over and above the two other employees. It is the Union's contention, then, that Employee W.M. had at least the same ability, merit and capacity as Employees L.H. and J.M., and that his greater seniority should have entitled him to promotion to the leader classification. Though the original claim sought back pay for all of the men affected by what the Union claimed was a violation of Paragraph 63 in the promotion of all leaders, the instant grievance as presented to the Umpire has been limited to the case of Employee W.M. in such a manner that the claim for back pay can apply only to his individual case. Corporation Position Management maintains that it gave proper consideration to the relative ability, merit and capacity of all the employees in the Press Metal Department whose records indicated any welding experience, potentiality for welding work, or leader qualifications. The first selection of men to be trained for welding, Management states, was made from among these men whom Management felt showed the greatest ability, merit and capacity to become leaders in the welding classification. Later, when many of the men had completed their welding training, Management contends that it again gave particular attention to the relative ability, merit and capacity of the various individuals who were placed in the leader classification. Had it followed the Union's suggestions that promotions to the leader classification be based only upon the seniority dates of the employees who had finished their training as welders over a short interval of time, Management reasons that it would have disregarded entirely the need for leadership ability. To have judged all employees solely on their ability to weld would, in Management's opinion, have been to give absolutely no consideration as to their relative abilities, merits and capacities to fulfill the positions of leaders. Inasmuch as the National Agreement does not provide for promotions to higher rated jobs on the basis of seniority alone, but rather on the basis of seniority when ability, merit and capacity are equal, Management reasons that its promotion of Employees L.H. and J.M. does not represent a violation of the Agreement. It is Management's strong contention that the relative ability, merit and capacity of Employees L.H. and J.M. to fill the job of welder leaders far exceeded that of Employee W.M. Employee W.M. was transferred to production welding in line with his seniority from among those men who had qualified as productive welders, Management notes, but he was not promoted to the position of a leader for the reasons that he has never held the position of leader and has not shown the capacity or ability to assume real responsibilities.
Observations and Decision of the Umpire Paragraph 63 of the June 3, 1941 Agreement has been the subject of many decisions of the Umpire in the "B" series. It is hardly necessary at this late date to state again that seniority is only a factor in promotion to a higher paid job when the ability, merit and capacity of a group of employees available for that job are considered to be relatively equal. In the present case the only point on which the Umpire can rule is whether or not the relative ability, merit and capacity of Employee W.M. was approximately equal to those of Employees L.H. and J.M. If such were found to be the case, it would only then be possible to hold that the greater seniority of Employee W.M. entitled him to promotion before the other two employees. If Employee W.M. had any real claim in this case it should have been made early in 1942 when employees were selected for training in the welding classification. If he felt his ability, merit and capacity were equivalent to the two men to whose job he now lays claim, it seems clear that he should have made his claim known at the time these men were selected for training in the welding operation. Of course, such a claim could only have gained merit had the welding classification carried a rate that would have represented a promotion for him and for the men to whose jobs he lays claim. When Employees L.H. and J.M. were selected in April, 1942, to be trained as welder leaders, Management apparently made its choice on the basis of the relative ability, merit and capacity of these men as compared to other applicants. Had Employee W.M. felt that he was improperly treated in that selection he should have made his claim known at that time. By his failure to press his claim, these two employees had been in training for approximately two months before Employee W.M. began productive welding, and both of them had already qualified as welders at about the time that W.M. entered the welding training program. By September 15, 1942, when W.M. began productive welding, these two men already had approximately five months' experience as welders and were obviously far above him in ability, merit and capacity to do the welding task. Their positions as welder leaders were then firmly entrenched, and it is difficult to conceive how Employee W.M. could claim on August 26, 1942, that he should have been given one of the jobs for which the two men had completed their special leader training and had such a relatively long period of experience (as a welder and a leader). All of the available evidence in this case leads to the conclusion that on August 26, 1942, when Employee W.M. presented the instant grievance, the position of welder leader had been held by Employees L.H. and J.M. for almost one month and that these two employees had already had an excess of four months' training and experience as welders. On that date, Employee W.M. had only qualified as a welder and had not done any productive welding. Since Employee W.M. raised no objection in April, 1942, when these two other employees were first given training as potential welder leaders, the claim he filed in late August is certainly not a timely presentation of his individual grievance. On August 26, 1942, Employee W.M. had absolutely no claim to the jobs held by Employees L.H. and J.M. inasmuch as he had failed to lay claim to such jobs at the time the two men were first placed in training for the welder leader job. His request for assignment to the Welder Leader classification and for back pay, therefore, must be denied.
Decision
Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR. Umpire February 10, 1943. |