|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-4 February 9, 1943
Protest of Disciplinary Action
GRIEVANCE: Saginaw Steering Gear—Case C-8 "I was given 3 days leave of absence from work to go deer hunting by my foreman. I was absent one day over my leave. When I reported for work with a reasonable alibi I was told I was a voluntary quit, and as such was cleared out. I asked for a committeeman and was denied that also. I therefore claim violation of Par. 113-75 and 121-b. I ask that I be returned to work, and be reimbursed for all lost time."
Umpire’s Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 434 and General Motors Corporation—Saginaw Steering Gear Division—Case C-8
The employee grievance in this case, which was presented by Employee M. on November 19, 1942, reads as follows: "I was given 3 days leave of absence from work to go deer hunting, by my foreman. I was absent one day over my leave. When I reported for work with a reasonable alibi I was told I was a voluntary quit, and as such was cleared out. I asked for a Committeeman and was denied that also. I therefore claim violation of Par. 113 -- 75 and 121-b. I ask that I be returned to work, and be reimbursed for all lost time." A hearing on this matter was held in Saginaw on January 13, 1943. Nature of Case Past experience during the Michigan deer hunting season led Management of the Saginaw Steering Gear Division to believe that steps would be necessary to cope with an abnormally high rate of absenteeism. For this reason, plans were formulated by which employees were excused for several days to go hunting, but these plans did not enable all employees to leave at the beginning of the season. Employee M. was excused for the dates of November 21, 22, and 23, 1942, to go deer hunting, but he absented himself from the plant on November 14, 15, 16, and 17, 1942, so that he could start his hunting at the beginning of the deer season. At the end of the shift on November 17, 1942, Management sent M. a letter informing him that he was a "voluntary quit without notice" for being absent for three working days without proper notice. Management offered to return him to his job, but did so with the stipulation that his seniority would be broken. The Union protests this action as representing discipline far in excess of that warranted by the circumstances, and requests that M. be reinstated in his job with his previous seniority standing. It is noted that an original request for back pay for the time lost, together with other charges included in the original grievance, have been dropped by the Union through the steps of the grievance procedure. The only recent request of Union has been that M.’s seniority be reinstated. Union Claim When Employee M. was told that he would not be granted time to go deer hunting until November 21, 1942, the Union observes that he discussed the matter with his foreman "from the point of view of determining the possible penalty" if he should go hunting at the beginning of the deer season. In this connection, it is claimed by the Union that the foreman indicated that a disciplinary layoff would undoubtedly be invoked against M., and that M. left at the beginning of the deer hunting season with full cognizance that he would be subject to a disciplinary layoff for his act. The expectation that Management would act leniently in this case is reasoned by the Union to have arisen from the fact that M.’s department had been working on a seven-day week basis for a considerable period of time. In the Union’s opinion, Management was aware of Committeeman M.’s intention to absent himself from the plant on November 16, and 17, 1942. In fact, the Union claims that M. informed three different members of supervision on separate occasions that he intended to go deer hunting on November 15, 1942. Though it agrees that he should have been subjected to a disciplinary layoff for such an act, the Union does not feel that disciplinary action should have taken the extreme form of a loss of seniority. Furthermore, the Union contends that M.’s absence on November 14, 1942, was occasioned by the loss of time which he experienced in getting his car repaired at a local garage. His absence on November 15, 1942, is claimed by the Union not to have represented the loss of a regular work day, because of the fact that it was a Sunday, and his job was not necessarily to be operated on that day. In conclusion, the Union contends that the loss of income which Employee M. suffered through his act should be a sufficient penalty, and requests that his seniority date be re-established as of its original date. Corporation Position Management observes that it made every effort to establish some plan whereby employees at this plant, who were interested in deer hunting, would have an opportunity to pursue their hobby as early in the season as was possible. When M.’s foreman informed him that he would be excused on November 21, 22 and 23, 1942, Management maintains that M. "declared in the presence of other supervisors and employees in the department that he was going to take the opening week whether anyone liked it or not." When this employee did not report to work, and did not notify Management as to the reason for his absence on November 14, 15, 16, and 17, 1942, Management maintains that he absented himself without reporting, and was logically held responsible for severing his seniority under the terms of Paragraph 64-C of the October 19, 1942 Agreement. In the instant case, Management maintains that it had two alternatives, namely, to terminate M.’s employment by discharging him for failure to report to work in disregard of his foreman’s instructions, or to have cleared him out as a voluntary quit. Management notes that it decided on the latter course because of the employee’s length of service at this plant. Disciplinary action is noted by Management to have been taken in only a few cases of the hundreds of men who were given leaves of absence to go deer hunting. In each of these cases, Management observes that "discipline was meted out to fit the situation." Had Management taken any other action than it did in the instant case, it is contended that "shop discipline would have been challenged, discrimination would have been shown, and production employees could have claimed that the alleged aggrieved had been permitted to disregard the rules because he was a skilled employee." In such a case, Management reasons, "the loss of an employee’s seniority is not too severe a penalty when the violation concerns a deliberate and complete disregard of posted rules and regulations particularly when such violation is known to not only the men in his own group but to others in the plant." For these reasons, Management contends that its action in this case should be supported by the Umpire. Observation and Decision of the Umpire The action protested by the instant grievance cannot be adjudged in any other form except as a disciplinary action invoked for failure to abide by orders of Management. While it is evident that Employee M. absented himself improperly for three days, and thereby violated Paragraph 64-C of the October 19, 1942 Agreement, it is nevertheless true that Management’s action in this case was wholly in the form of discipline that was invoked for an act by an employee which it determined to be entirely improper. It is necessary, therefore, for the Umpire to consider whether or not the loss of seniority to this employee was a proper disciplinary action under all the circumstances involved in this case. When Employee M. decided to disregard Management’s instructions to do his deer hunting on November 21 to 23, 1942, he took a distinctly improper advantage of Management’s real attempt to give an opportunity to deer hunters at this plant to follow their distinctive hobby. By his action of leaving a week earlier than the period granted to him, M. made it rather difficult for Management to carry on the projected production schedules in his department. Furthermore, he flaunted Management’s authority in this instance and severely affected Management’s ability to maintain proper discipline in part of this plant. For such a violation of his responsibilities as an employee, M. was obviously subject to some sort of disciplinary action. The fact that the Saginaw Steering Gear Division is a relatively new plant as respects the seniority of its employees, makes the seniority standing of Employee M. a very important matter. In fact, loss of seniority in such an instance is second only to discharge as to severity of discipline. The Umpire is of the conviction that M. should have been subjected to a severe disciplinary layoff, but feels that the complete loss of seniority as a disciplinary action in this instance is too severe a penalty. This conclusion is particularly based on the fact that M.’s foreman was responsible for M.’s belief that he would be subjected only to a disciplinary layoff if he disregarded Management’s instructions in the matter. Inasmuch as Employee M. lost approximately one month of employment at this plant (he returned to work on December 16, 1942), he experienced a real loss of income as an outgrowth of his entirely improper action. However, such a loss as a disciplinary layoff is not considered by the Umpire to be a sufficient penalty under the circumstances. While a complete loss of seniority is too severe a penalty, it is held that Employee M. should be subjected to a loss of seniority equivalent to the period between the day the notice was sent to him that he was a "voluntary quit," and the day he started back to work.
Decision
Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR. Umpire February 9, 1943. |