|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE C-12 February 20, 1943
Job Classification and Wage Rate
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet Bloomfield—Case C-6 "The department demands new classifications retroactive from November 9th, starting date of the new operation."
Umpire’s Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 713 and General Motors Corporation—Chevrolet—Bloomfield Division—Case C-6
The employee grievance in this case, which was presented by Committeeman Z. on November 11, 1942, reads as follows: "The department demands new classifications retroactive from November 9th, starting date of the new operation." The hearing on this matter was held in New York on January 19, 1943.
Nature of Case and Claims of Parties For many years prior to the date of the instant grievance the Chevrolet-Bloomfield Division performed an export boxing operation which consisted of boxing completely knocked-down automobiles and trucks for export. A classification in the local wage agreement entitled "Loading and Boxing Automobiles—Export", with a rate of $1.09 per hour, has been applied to this work. In November 1942, this division received a temporary assignment to remove approximately 250 trucks from boxes in which they had already been crated, and to replace these units in their original form for delivery to Military authorities. This operation required the performance of a series of operations which Management felt was merely the reverse order of the operations of disassembling and packing the trucks for export. Inasmuch as this was a temporary job that was to be completed in approximately four weeks, Management placed the men who performed the work under the classification noted above. The Union filed the instant grievance requesting a new classification and rate for this job. The operation performed by the men in question in this case is claimed by the Union to have been of a nature customarily performed in Assembly plants. Inasmuch as the local wage agreement has no classification or wage rate for this job, the Union contends that the rate for the new job should have been negotiated with the Union committee pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 112 (a), and 112 (b), of the October 19, 1942 Agreement. The Union requests, therefore, that a proper rate be established for this job, and that it be made retroactive to November 9, 1942, the starting date of this particular job. Inasmuch as the performance of the work here in question was so much like that of "Loading and Boxing Automobiles—Export", in that it required the same tools, and involved identical operations performed in a reverse order, Management reasons that the job was properly classified under that heading. In Management’s opinion, this work could not be compared to the regular assembly operations that are performed in Assembly plants, inasmuch as it consisted of rebuilding trucks from complete units that had been previously boxed for Export. Furthermore, it is noted that this work was not performed on moving conveyors with established times. Because of the similarity of the operation involved with that of the loading and boxing of automobiles for export, and because of the fact that the work was of a temporary nature "which could not be established under any other existing classification at this location", Management reasons that the work was correctly classified under the terms of the local wage agreement. Management concludes its argument in this case as respects the events that occurred after the job was classified as above, as follows: "Negotiations were opened on the basis that the export loading classification would cover this work and that the production job rate would be established under the same factors as the rate for this classification."
Observations and Conclusions of the Umpire In the job in question in this case, Management sought a classification in the local wage agreement that would most closely apply, in order to assign a rate to a job which it was aware would last for only a short period. In doing so, however, Management selected a classification which was quite different from the actual work involved. Instead of disassembly for boxing this operation actually consisted of assembly of a complete truck from a box of disassembled units. While many of the operations which are performed in the disassembly job were performed in this instance, they were obviously performed in a different manner. Instead of disassembling a series of parts and units to be packed in a box, the men involved had to apply the necessary skills to assemble a truck that would be in working order when completed. Under such circumstances, the classification and rate which applied to the disassembly of the trucks for export, clearly should not have applied for the assembly of the trucks for actual operation. In the earlier steps of the grievance procedure, the Union has cited rates in the vicinity which have applied to the assembly operations. Inasmuch as these operations are not a part of the local wage agreement, they are clearly not applicable. Rather, the parties must apply themselves to the negotiation of a classification and rate which should apply to this particular job on a retroactive basis. This conclusion is necessary inasmuch as neither party can point to any particular classification in the local wage agreement which can be held to have been specifically applicable to the operations here in question. For this reason, the present case is returned to the parties for their negotiations, and it is held that any rate which they may agree upon shall be applicable on a retroactive basis to November 11, 1942, the date of the instant grievance.
Decision:
Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR. Umpire February 20, 1943. |