|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-83 August 2, 1943
Promotion Under Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: Eastern Aircraft Trenton—Case C-6 "I charge Management with a direct violation of Paragraph 63. Seniority was not taken into consideration in this case. Request that this case be reviewed and the wrong done righted."
Umpire’s Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 731 and General Motors Corporation—Eastern Aircraft—Trenton Division—Case C-6
Two grievances presented on February 11, 1943, by Employees G. and S. were originally combined for consideration in this single decision. At the hearing on this matter the Union withdrew the case of Employee S. and presented its claim only with regard to Employee G. Employee G.’s grievance reads as follows: "I charge Management with a direct violation of Paragraph 63. Seniority was not taken into consideration in this case. Request that this case be reviewed and the wrong done righted." The complaint made by the employee in this case was that he was not promoted to the job of pipefitter leader that was awarded to Employee L. in early February, 1943. A hearing on this matter was held in New York on July 8, 1943.
Nature of Case Early in February, 1943, a need developed for an additional leader in the pipefitter group at this plant. Supervision reviewed the records of eligible pipefitters and promoted Employee L. (seniority date November 22, 1940) to the new position. Employee G. (seniority date October 17, 1938), a pipefitter with approximately seven years more experience than Employee L., filed the instant grievance claiming that he should have received the promotion. It is the contention of the Union that the ability, merit and capacity of Employee G. was approximately equal to that of Employee L., and that his greater seniority should have caused him to be promoted in place of L. Union Claim The Union observes that the plant history record of the aggrieved Employee G. is an exact duplicate of Employee L. It states that these records read as follows:
The information contained in the table noted above is reasoned by the Union to give full support to its contention that L. was not "head and shoulders" above G., but that they were approximately equal as to "ability, merit and capacity". For Management to say that Employee L. was "head and shoulders" above Employee G. in ability, merit and capacity, the Union maintains, is simply not supported by the facts of the case. The Union notes that Management has cited other types of nebulous qualities which it maintained led it to choose L. over G. for the promotion to the leader classification. Since the gradings noted by the Union are deemed by it to be such significant determinants of the qualities of a good employee, and those qualities have actually been recorded, the Union maintains that the two employees concerned should have been evaluated on those qualities and not on the basis of some nebulous criteria which Management cannot actually define or cite in any concrete form. The statement made by Management to the effect that Employee L. successfully operated his own business for a number of years and thereby indicated his leadership and initiative, is severely questioned by the Union. Though some minor significance might attach to this point, the Union maintains that it could not possibly be a reason to hold that L. was "head and shoulders" above G. in ability, merit and capacity. In the earlier steps of the grievance procedure, the Union notes, Management has stated that "fellow employees have sometimes requested that they not be assigned to work with G." If it is true that employees requested not to be assigned to work with G., the Union maintains that the hesitancy occurred only because some workers are not prone to seek to work with a journeyman who sets a very exact pace. The competence of G. as a mechanic and his outstanding service record attest to the fact that he has set an outstanding pace as a pipefitter to which some workmen might not care to expose themselves, the Union reasons. In conclusion, the Union maintains that Management has made only statements of a general nature to support its claim that L.’s potentialities of leadership and initiative are greater than G.’s and has cited no precise evidence or reasons on which it has based its conclusions. Since Management’s records and supervisor’s ratings are identical for the two men, the Union asserts that they should have been considered equal in ability, merit and capacity. The Union asks, therefore, that Employee L.’s job as a pipefitter leader be declared vacant and be awarded to Employee G. It requests also that Employee G. receive a wage adjustment for the losses suffered by failure to receive promotion to the pipefitter leader’s job in February, 1943. Corporation Position While Management admits that plant records covering quality and quantity of work, attendance, cooperation, safety, and adaptability of the two men in question show them to be approximately equal as mechanics, it maintains that other elements caused it to consider L. "head and shoulders" above G. when it made the promotion to the pipefitter leader classification in February, 1943. The fact that Employee L. had thirteen years’ experience as a journeyman plumber as compared to the twenty years’ experience of Employee G. is claimed by Management to be more than offset by the fact that in nine of the years L. successfully operated his own business. By operating a business in this manner Management maintains that he indicated his potentialities of leadership and initiative. Furthermore, Management claims L. has "proven himself to be very cooperative, conscientious, and progressive in his work". It is said that he has led other employees in various work assignments and has succeeded in commanding the respect and cooperation of men working with him due to his knowledge and ability of his trade. In the case of Employee G., the complainant, Management agrees that he is competent as a mechanic, but maintains that he has allowed "his attitude to reflect carelessness in his work". It holds that his cooperation and attitude have caused Management to find him unsuitable for the position as a leader. Several times, Management points out, it has been necessary for supervision to call G.’s shortcomings in regard to his cooperation and attitude to his attention, but it is maintained that these warnings have had little effect. On June 5, 1942, when pipefitters were engaged in changeover work, it is observed that G. received a reprimand for poor workmanship. It is also noted that the statement of reprimand calls attention to the fact that G. had been verbally warned on several occasions "but each time had given a surly and sarcastic reply". On still another occasion Management asserts that G. was requested to make an adjustment shortly after his starting time (December 27, 1940). It is said that he expressed resentment to the request and responded with an oath. On that occasion and several other times, Management maintains that G. was warned regarding his negative and belligerent attitude. Finally, it is said that several employees have stated that they do not care to work with G. because they have experienced real difficulty in working peacefully with him. This latter problem has been so serious at times, Management maintains, that it has been necessary to have G. work practically alone. Under these circumstances, Management reasons that G.’s suitability to become a leader was far below that of Employee L. at the time that it made the promotion in question. Though Management admits that as workmen and mechanics there is an approximate equality between the employees in question, it asserts that Employee L. "proved to be more deserving in point of merit and better fitted in point of capacity to assume the responsibilities of the leader job". His ability to work with men in a congenial and cooperative manner was proven by his experience in working as a pipefitter with helpers, Management states. On the other hand, a complete absence of ability to work in a congenial and cooperative manner has been proven by G.’s experience, Management maintains. Since G., in its opinion, lacked the qualifications of leadership and dependability that are necessary prerequisites for a leader’s job, and since over a period of time he has been reprimanded on several occasions for a negative and belligerent attitude, Management maintains that its decision to promote L. to the pipefitter leader classification instead of Employee G. was in full compliance with the requirements of Paragraph 63 of the National Agreement.
Observation and Decision of the Umpire The Umpire cannot agree with Management that Employee L. stood "head and shoulders" above Employee G. with respect to his ability, merit and capacity to perform the pipefitter leader’s operation. The seven years of additional experience which Employee G. had over Employee L. could easily have offset any advantage which Management may feel arose out of L.’s conduct of his own plumbing business. All of the elements of objective rating which Management had used, and of which the Union was aware, showed the two men in question to be equal as to quantity and quality of work, attendance, cooperation, etc. With those measurements in mind it cannot be said, then, that Employee L. stood "head and shoulders" above Employee G. with respect to ability, merit and capacity. However, the Umpire is likewise convinced that Employee G. should not have been grouped with Employee L. as being approximately equal to him with regard to ability, merit and capacity. Though all of the objective ratings cited by the Union, plus the offset of greater experience on the part of Employee G. over L.’s operation of his own business, should have resulted in the conclusion that they were approximately equal in ability, merit and capacity, there are several offsetting factors present. The record of Employee G. with respect to the warnings and reprimands which were given to him for improper actions on his part find no equal in the record of Employee L. In addition, there is no question that Employee G.’s potentialities as a leader were far less than those of Employee L. because he has evidenced some inability to work well with other men. Though this problem may be effaced in the near future it certainly existed at the time that the promotion was made. Since the leader classification is one from which Management often picks its members of supervision, an inability to get along with fellow workmen is a serious impediment to fulfilling the requirements of the leader classification. With respect to his record of warnings for improper acts, and his inability to obtain complete cooperation of the men with whom he worked, then, it must be held that G. was not in the same class as L. When a grouping of available pipefitters was made within which men of approximately equal ability, merit and capacity were placed, it seems quite proper to have excluded G. from the group in which L. had been placed. Since Employee G. did not properly belong in the same group as Employee L. insofar as his relative ability, merit and capacity were concerned, it follows that the promotion of L. over G. in February, 1943, did not represent a violation of Paragraph 63 of the National Agreement. Employee G.’s requests that L.’s job be declared vacant, that it be awarded to him, and that he be reimbursed for alleged improper loss of income, are denied.
Decision
Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR., UMPIRE. August 2, 1943. |