|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-34 April 19, 1943
Disciplinary Layoff
GRIEVANCE: Saginaw Malleable—Cases C-7 and C-8 "I ask that I be returned to work and that I be paid for all time lost."
Umpire’s Decision: Employees K. and S. are held to have violated a deer hunting privilege extended by Management, and to have subjected themselves to the two-week penalty which was invoked in all instances in which employees were guilty of such a violation. Had either of the employees made any real attempt to return to the plant, and had not "hidden" behind the excuse of a break-down of their car, the inevitable conclusion in this case could not have been reached by Management or the Umpire. The two employees’ requests for reimbursement are denied. (Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America, C.I.O.—Local 455 and General Motors Corporation—Saginaw Malleable Division—Cases C-7 and C-8
Two employee grievances have been combined for consideration in this case. These two grievances, signed by employees K. and S. on November 25, 1942, read as follows: "I ask that I be returned to work and that I be paid for all time lost." A hearing on these matters was held in Saginaw on March 19, 1943. Nature of Case and Claims of Parties In anticipation of the deer hunting season, Management of the Saginaw Malleable Division arranged a plan whereby employees could take time off with a minimum loss of operating efficiency. Employees K. and S. asked for and received permission to be absent from work from November 26, through November 29, 1942, for the expressed purpose of deer hunting. When they filed their requests for leave, these two employees asked their superintendent what they could expect in the way of discipline if they should absent themselves on days other than those for which they were excused. Management states that they were both informed that they would get "time off" if they should take any such action. Two days before the hunting season opened they repeated this query and were again informed in the same manner. It is also noted that the committee at this plant was notified ten days prior to the opening of the deer season that all employees who took unauthorized leaves would be given two weeks off as a penalty. Employees K. and S. went hunting on the day the deer hunting season began, November 15, 1942. On the morning of November 16, 1942, a telephone call was received at the plant to the effect that the two men would not be in to work that day "as their car broke down." The message also stated that "they might possibly be back on Tuesday (November 17) or Wednesday, November 18." Both men reported to work on November 18, 1942, but were sent home because replacements had already been secured for them. A few days after they returned to work a disciplinary layoff was invoked against them for taking improper leave. The Union has filed the instant grievance contending that the disciplinary layoff was invoked without proper proof that a violation of the deer hunting privilege had occurred. Management’s position is that these two employees left with the admitted intent of going deer hunting and simply found an excuse for failing to return to the plant on November 16, 1942. Had the "convenient" break-down occurred as the men claimed, Management reasons that other transportation could have been arranged by them inasmuch as the break-down is said to have occurred while they were on the highway on their way back to Saginaw. Management felt that "these two men had improperly absented themselves thereby violating a condition of their employment and later chanced upon the car break-down excuse to permit them added days of hunting at the opening of the season rather than to wait for their excused ‘leaves’ from November 25 to November 29..." Because of what it contends represents a "flagrant violation" of the deer hunting privilege, Management maintains that it exercised discipline in this case commensurate with Paragraph 8 of the October 19, 1942 Agreement. The Union admits that the men concerned went hunting on November 15, 1942, but it maintains that they had every intention of returning to work on Monday, November 16, 1942. When these employees notified Management that their car had broken down, the Union contends that they fulfilled their obligation to inform Management of their expected absences and should not have been held responsible for a violation of the deer hunting privilege. It was pointed out that the two men went approximately 100 miles from Saginaw to hunt and had a great deal of equipment in their car which they could not leave at some distant location. The Union presented a copy of a receipted bill from a garage in Fairview, Michigan, which noted that a total of $11.89 was paid by one of the employees for automobile repairs. It is the Union’s opinion that the two men were not guilty of staying away from the plant improperly, and it cites as a basis for this conclusion its thought that the two men would not have paid a repair bill if their excuse was not authentic. The Union, therefore, requests that the disciplinary layoff of these two men be revoked, and asks that they be reimbursed with back pay for all time lost. Observations and Decision of the Umpire Management’s attempt to make a period available for employees to indulge in their favorite hunting sport is an act which should be encouraged rather than being taken advantage of by unthinking employees. By their acts prior to the beginning of the deer season, employees K. and S. definitely indicated that they were weighing the discipline that might be meted out to them if they should take improper leave at the beginning of the season. They were definitely told that they would be given "time off" if they took such an action, and their committeeman was informed that a two-week disciplinary layoff would be invoked for any such infraction. When the two employees, who had anticipated what their potential layoff might be if they went deer hunting prior to their excused leave, went deer hunting on November 15, 1942, with all of their equipment, they brought upon themselves the potentiality of being found in violation of the deer hunting privilege. If the break-down of their car actually occurred, it seems reasonable that at least the employee who was not the owner of the car would have made every attempt to return to the plant immediately so that the obvious conclusion which could be drawn from their absence would lose any reason for existence. By the failure of either of them to make any attempt to get back to the plant within a reasonable interval, the only obvious conclusion that can be drawn is that the days of November 16 and 17, 1942, represented two additional days that they had planned to go deer hunting, and for which they were merely seeking an excuse. Upon both of the employees rests the onus for this conclusion, and they must bear the responsibility for placing themselves in jeopardy of a two-week layoff. Under all of the circumstances here present, then, the Umpire must conclude that Employees K. and S. violated the deer hunting privilege. For this reason they are held properly the subject of a two-week disciplinary layoff. Their claims for back pay are denied.
Decision Employees K. and S. are held to have violated a deer hunting privilege extended by Management, and to have subjected themselves to the two-week penalty which was invoked in all instances in which employees were guilty of such a violation. Had either of the employees made any real attempt to return to the plant, and had not "hidden" behind the excuse of a break-down of their car, the inevitable conclusion in this case could not have been reached by Management or the Umpire. The two employees’ requests for reimbursement are denied. Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR. UMPIRE April 19, 1943. |