|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-122 October 8, 1943
Job Classification and Wage Rate
GRIEVANCES: Chevrolet Flint—Cases C-97 and C-112 "Request that dipping parts in wax be put in its right classification. (Rust Proofing.) Request retroactive pay." "Request that I be paid the proper rate, $1.09 per hour, for the work I am doing, dipping unit parts in rust preventative compound. Request retroactive pay."
Umpire’s Decision: The operation of covering packaged parts completely by brushing or dipping them was not in existence at the time the local wage agreement and the June, 1942 supplement were effectuated. Neither party can cite a specific job classification in the local wage agreement which correctly applies to this work. Therefore, the present grievances are returned to the parties for their negotiations of a proper classification and rate for this new work. If any adjustment appears to be necessary after such negotiations, the adjustment shall be made under the terms of Paragraph 112 of the National Agreement. (Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 659 and General Motors Corporation—Chevrolet Flint Division—Cases C-97, C-112.
Two employee grievances that involve the same type of work have been combined by the parties for consideration in this single decision. The first grievance was presented by Employee O. on March 22, 1943, and read: "Request that dipping parts in wax be put in its right classification. (Rust Proofing) Request retroactive pay." The second grievance presented on April 20, 1943, by Employee A., read as follows: "Request that I be paid the proper rate, $1.09 per hour for the work I am doing, dipping unit parts in rust preventative compound. Request retroactive pay." A hearing on these two grievances was held in Flint on September 10, 1943.
Nature of Case The employees covered by the instant grievances are classified as "Unitizers" in the Parts Division at this plant. A part of this unitizing operation included the sealing of packages with wax, gum tape or compound. Shortly before the filing of the instant grievance a system was installed that involved the wrapping of certain packages in "NO-OX-ID" cloth or waterproof paper and closing the package either by brushing or dipping it in wax or some other compound. Some of these parts have already been rust-proofed by having been dipped before wrapping into rust-proofing compound. The instant grievance claims that the work of applying the wax or compound should be classified under the heading "Rust-proofing" which Supplement No. 11 of the local wage agreement defines as "spraying, dipping or brushing oil or other rust-proofing compounds on service parts". It requests that the reclassification of this work be made effective as of the date of the instant grievances.
Union Claim The Union observes that on June 18, 1942, a supplement was negotiated and added to the local wage agreement to cover the work of rust-proofing. The Union maintains that it was understood during these negotiations that the classification was to include all rust-proofing in the Service Parts Department. A considerable time after this supplementary agreement was reached, the Union notes, employees classified as unitizers were assigned to the job of dipping wrapped packages into rust-proofing compounds. The Union holds that the primary reason for this procedure is to rustproof the package while the sealing is of secondary importance. In the particular case of A., the Union states that the employee’s job consists of dipping the packaged parts into the same rust-proofing vat as two other employees who dip the "bare" parts. The significance of this point is noted to arise from the fact that the aggrieved employee is classed as a "Unitizer" while the two other employees are recognized as being engaged in "Rust-proofing". It is particularly noted that these three men use the same tank, the same solution, and are required to perform their activities in an identical manner so that no bubbles remain on the surface of the dipped parts or package. The Union maintains that the primary object of the dipping of the packages is to rustproof them. The application of this rust preventative compound whether the part is bare metal, partially wrapped or wholly wrapped, in the Union’s opinion, is not a significant element of the job. Rather, it maintains that the packages are dipped or brushed for rust-proofing purposes and the employees who cover the packages completely with wax or compound should be paid the rust-proofing rate. It asks, then, that the employees covered by the instant grievances be classified under the heading of "Rust-proofing", and be paid the appropriate rate from the date of their grievances.
Corporation Position Management maintains that the classification of rust-proofing that was negotiated with the Union was to cover the application of oil or rust preventative compounds "to the bare metal parts". In the cases covered by the instant grievances, Management contends that the application of the wax is for sealing purposes only. Since unitizers have always been assigned the job of sealing containers in which they wrap parts, Management reasons that it was correct in assigning this sealing work to them in their existing classification. Supplement No. 11 of the local wage agreement, which refers to the classification of rust-proofing, is noted by Management to read as follows: "Spraying, dipping or brushing oil or rust preventing compounds on service parts". The phrase "on service parts" is held by Management to refer only to the application of rust preventing compounds directly to the bare metal. To give this phrase any meaning other than to cover the application of rust preventing compounds to the bare metal, in Management’s opinion, would be to give meaning to the job classification that was not agreed to by the parties. Even if the wax sealing should have rust-proofing value, Management contends that it is not a part of the rust-proofing classification as defined in the agreement and is not a necessary process in the case of parts that have already been rust-proofed. The section of the wage agreement relating to rust-proofing, Management concludes, does not place any limitation on the unitizer classification that did not exist before the rust-proofing classification was established.
Observations and Decision of the Umpire The contentions of both parties in this case are partly correct and partly incorrect. Management’s claim that the jobs of dipping packages in wax or other compounds, or of covering them completely by brushing, were not contained in the original rust-proofing classification is obviously correct because such jobs were not operative at the time the rust-proofing classification was established. The Union’s contention that the work of completely covering a package with wax or other compound by brushing or dipping is not included in the unitizer classification, is likewise correct. Management’s position that this work should be considered as "Unitizing", and the Union’s position that it should be considered as "Rust-proofing", are both in error. The major reason that both parties have had such difficulty in attempting to classify the job here in question is that this work did not exist at the time that they negotiated the rust-proofing or unitizing classifications. Both parties, then, have been trying to place a new job within existing classifications and have had great difficulty in convincing the other party that the elements of the new job rightly places it in one or the other classification. The Umpire cannot agree with either party in this particular case. It would seem that the idea of completely covering a packaged part (whether or not the part is rust-proofed on the bare metal) by brushing the wax or compound on the package or by dipping it completely into a vat, is an entirely new operation that was added after the local wage agreement and the June 1942 Supplement were effectuated. The Umpire is convinced that neither party can look to the local wage agreement for a specific job classification into which this work can be placed. For this reason the Umpire must return the instant case to the parties and direct that they enter negotiations to establish a classification and rate for this job. Any adjustment that appears to be necessary after negotiating a final classification and rate on this work should be made under the terms of Paragraph 112 of the National Agreement.
Decision: The operation of covering packaged parts completely by brushing or dipping them was not in existence at the time the local wage agreement and the June 1942 Supplement were effectuated. Neither party can cite a specific job classification in the local wage agreement which correctly applies to this work. Therefore, the present grievances are returned to the parties for their negotiations of a proper classification and rate for this new work. If any adjustment appears to be necessary after such negotiations, the adjustment shall be made under the terms of Paragraph 112 of the National Agreement. Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR. UMPIRE October 8, 1943 |