|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-6 February 10, 1943
Disciplinary Layoff
GRIEVANCE: Oldsmobile Forge—Case C-1 "I was given a 4-day layoff for infraction of company rules. I did not violate any company rule and demand that I be paid for the four days."
Umpire’s Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 652 and General Motors Corporation—Oldsmobile—Forge Plant—Case C-1
On October 23, 1942, Employee B. presented a grievance to Management which read as follows: "I was given a 4-day layoff for infraction of company rules. I did not violate any company rule and demand that I be paid for the four days." The discipline in this case was imposed for alleged complicity in an improper recording of B.’s time on his clock card. A hearing on this case was held in Flint on January 15, 1943. Nature of Case and Claims of Parties On Monday, October 12, 1942, Employee B. did not report for work, although his clock card was punched in at 12:02 A.M. and out at 8:01 A.M. He worked the next three days and later admitted that he noted that his card had recorded his presence on Monday but had made no attempt to report the fact to any member of supervision. On Friday, October 16, 1942, Employee B. was again absent, but his card was punched in at 12:00 Midnight. An observer was placed near the time clock at the close of the shift and another employee, who Management alleges is a close friend and associate of Employee B. was detected in the act of ringing B.’s clock card at approximately 8:00 A.M. This second employee was given a two-week layoff and a like penalty was first assessed against Employee B. for his alleged complicity in the matter. Through an error, Employee B. was told to report to work on October 21, 1942, after having served four days of his disciplinary layoff. His penalty was then reduced to four days, and two days later he filed the instant grievance protesting the entire disciplinary action. Management points out that Employee B. did not telephone to the plant, nor did he have anyone report his expected absence to supervision on October 12, or 16, 1942. Though he failed to call in on Monday, October 12, 1942, Management does not contend that he was necessarily involved in having his time card punched in and out by another employee on that day. However, when he failed to report the matter on the following three days, and then was absent without reporting on the final day of the week, Management feels that he was definitely involved in the second incident in which his time was recorded improperly on his clock card. By his failure to notify supervision of his expected absence on the two days, plus his failure to report the fact that his card was punched in for a day on which he did not work, Management claims that Employee B. was involved in a violation of the two following Shop Rules: "Rule 1 -- Falsification of personnel or other records. (Penalty: One week layoff to discharge.)" "Rule 2 -- Knowingly ringing the clock card of another. (Penalty: Two weeks layoff to discharge.)" While Management recognizes that Employee B. did not admit that he conspired with another employee furtively to record his time on the two days he was absent, it holds that B. was benefited by the act, failed to bring the improper record to the attention of Management, and neglected on two separate occasions in the same week to report his expected absence to the plant. In view of these facts, Management holds that B. was "guilty of complicity in this dishonest act." Management, therefore, concludes that Employee B. was rightly disciplined by a four-day layoff, and maintains he should not be reimbursed for the time lost. The Union reasons that it is not the duty of an employee to report time which is recorded incorrectly on his time card, but that it is Management’s responsibility to make the necessary checks to avoid any improprieties. In the present case, it is the Union’s opinion that there was absolutely no proof that Employee B. conspired with the man who punched his time card on the days in question, and that Management assessed the penalty entirely on the basis of conjecture. Without the presence of telling evidence to connect Employee B. with the act of improperly recording his time, the Union reasons that Management proceeded on the basis of pretext or fancy in assessing B.’s discipline. The Union’s major contention in this case, then, is that disciplinary action properly applied is entirely necessary, but that such discipline should be assessed on the basis of facts which can sustain the reason for such action on the part of Management. Finally, the Union contends that not only has an injustice been done in this particular case, but it strongly urges that "a very distinct principle of collective bargaining is involved... namely, that a worker should not and cannot be disciplined upon assumption". In view of what it contends is the absence of irrevocable facts in this case, the Union requests that Employee B. receive reimbursement for the four days of his disciplinary layoff. Conclusion and Decision of the Umpire The facts in this case point definitely to the conclusion that Employee B.’s card was punched in and out on October 12, and 16, 1942, in a manner that casts serious suspicion upon Employee B. On at least three separate occasions he had an opportunity to take a step which would have shown clearly that he had no part in the improper recording of time for which he alone could benefit. The first instance was when he failed to call the plant, or have anyone report to the plant, on October 12, 1942, relative to the fact that he would not report to work. Had B. notified supervision, it would have been clear that the employee who punched in B.’s card did so entirely upon his own initiative. When Employee B. reported back to work, and on three separate days failed to notify any member of supervision that he was improperly recorded as having worked on Monday, he again missed an opportunity of lifting suspicion as to his complicity in this entire matter. Even though he may not have felt it his responsibility to report the recording of such time to Management, his failure to do so causes him to be responsible for any suspicion which was later thrown upon him as to his connection with this whole incident. When, after three days of failing to report his improperly recorded presence, he again absented himself from the plant and failed to notify Management in any way, his connection with the second act of recording his presence in the plant seems certain beyond all question of doubt. The final failure of Employee B. to notify the plant as to his expected absence on October 16, 1942, when it followed all of the other factors which caused real suspicion to be thrown upon him, forces the Umpire to conclude that he was directly connected with a dishonest plan to record his presence in the plant. In as much as Employee B is found to have been directly involved in a plan to record his presence in the plant improperly, the Umpire must conclude that he was rightly subject to a disciplinary layoff. The fact that he received a four-day disciplinary layoff, as compared to that of two weeks for the man who actually punched his card on the two days in question, seems to attach proper weight to his part in the matter. For this reason, then, it is ruled that Employee B. was rightly subjected to a four-day disciplinary layoff, and his claim for back pay is denied.
Decision
Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR. Umpire February 10, 1943. |