|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-75 July 9, 1943
Seniority in Bargaining Unit and Promotion Under Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: Detroit Diesel—Case C-50 "Supervision violated Par. 59 by transferring Clerks from office to Stock Chasing out of line of seniority. Request the oldest qualified in A3A to be given Stock Chasing jobs."
Umpire’s Decision: No provision of the National Agreement was applicable to the two clerical employees concerned in this grievance prior to the date that they were moved into the bargaining group. When they were placed in that group they were properly treated as new employees, and no violation of any Agreement provision can be said to have obtained. The Union’s claim in this entire matter, therefore, must be denied. (Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 163 and General Motors Corporation—Detroit Diesel Division—Case C-50 A policy grievance in this case was presented by District Committeeman N. on March 18, 1943. The grievance protests the assignment of two clerical employees to jobs within the bargaining units on the grounds that such jobs should have been given as promotions to men in the bargaining unit who possessed the greatest ability, merit and capacity for the jobs. The grievance reads as follows: "Supervision violated Par. 59 by transferring Clerks from office to Stock Chasing out of line of Seniority. Request the oldest qualified in A3A to be given Stock Chasing jobs." A hearing on this matter was held in Detroit on June 25, 1943.
Nature of Case and Claims of Parties The grievance in this case was presented as a policy grievance in protest of the placing of two clerical employees in jobs in the clearing group that is a part of the bargaining unit at the Detroit Diesel Division. These two men had been employed as clerks on Service Move Orders in the Material Handling Office. When Management determined that they should be replaced by women employees because of the shortage of manpower, they decided to move them to the work of Stock Chasing in the plant. Consequently, on February 9, 1943, and March 1, 1943, Employees D. and G. respectively were transferred into the bargaining unit as "Stock Chasers." The Union protests this action, claiming that it represented a violation of Paragraphs 59 and 63 of the October 19, 1942 Agreement. The Union’s contention that the move-up of the two clerical employees into the jobs above the minimum of the clearing group constituted a violation of Paragraph 59 of the Agreement, arises out of its opinion that such an act represented a transfer of the employees out of line with their seniority. The Union further contends that the ability, merit and capacity of several employees already in the clearing group far surpassed the relative ability, merit and capacity of the two clerks as stock chasers. Management’s action of moving these clerks into jobs in the bargaining unit without giving employees already in the unit the opportunity of securing promotions to such jobs, is held by the Union to set a precedent which will deny promotion to employees already covered by the agreement. The Union concludes by asserting that, "the oldest qualified employees in Department A3A, should be immediately transferred to the stock chasing jobs with retroactive adjustment to 3-18-43 the date original claim was made." Management notes that the clearing group to which the clerks were moved, is comprised of truckers, stock pickers, and stock chasers. While Management concedes that the clerks in question were not entitled to carry their period of service with the Division into the stock chaser jobs when they were transferred into the bargaining unit, it strongly contends that there was no violation of any National Agreement provision when it moved the two men into the stock chaser classification. It is pointed out that no provision of the National Agreement prohibits the transfer of an employee outside of the bargaining unit to a job within the bargaining unit. It is the contention of the Corporation that the two employees "possessed the ability, merit and capacity for stock chasing by virtue of having worked as clerks in the Material Handling Office." Had the two clerical employees never worked for the Division prior to the date they were placed in the stock chasing jobs, Management observes that it would have been quite proper for it to have assigned them to stock chasing as new employees. Furthermore, Management maintains that since the two employees were transferred from one job to another paying the same hourly rate, the change in their job was simply a transfer in which seniority was not a factor. In conclusion, Management declares itself of the opinion that any Agreement provisions that may have been applicable in this case were not violated in any manner by the transfer of the two clerks into the bargaining unit.
Observations and Decision of the Umpire The clearing group in the department involved in this case includes classifications that vary as to wage rate. However, there is no requirement in the local seniority agreement, or the local wage agreement, which provides that new employees must be hired in at the bottom or lowest rated jobs in the group. Past practice has been to hire employees directly into all of the jobs in the clearing group. Inasmuch as the two clerical employees were placed in the clearing group without taking their hiring dates with them to affect their seniority, it is obvious that they were treated simply as new employees. Since Management had the perfect right to hire new employees for any of the jobs in the clearing group that it desired, it cannot be held that there was a violation of any paragraph of the National Agreement when the two clerks were placed in that group. Neither Paragraph 59 nor 63 were applicable in this case, inasmuch as the two clerical employees were not covered by either of those paragraphs before being placed in the bargaining unit and neither paragraph could be cited as affecting them when they were placed in the clearing group. They were new employees insofar as the bargaining unit was concerned, and their treatment as new employees did not violate any provision of the National Agreement. The Union’s request in this case, then, is denied.
Decision No provision of the National Agreement was applicable to the two clerical employees concerned in this grievance prior to the date that they were moved into the bargaining group. When they were placed in that group they were properly treated as new employees, and no violation of any Agreement provision can be said to have obtained. The Union’s claim in this entire matter, therefore, must be denied. Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR. UMPIRE July 9, 1943. |