|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-139 November 29, 1943
Hiring of Women
GRIEVANCES: Chevrolet Gear & Axle—Cases C-105, C-109 and C-120 "Management is violating local seniority agreement by putting employees with no seniority on grinding when I am on the waiting list for grinding." "I am being discriminated against by Supt. O’C. for Union activity. My name has been on the waiting list for Grinder for 1 year. The available list is now exhausted and new employees are being placed on Grinders while Supt. O’C. refuses to have me placed on Grinder because I am a Committeeman." "Management is violating the local agreement by putting on employees with no seniority on grinders when I am on the waiting list." This grievance was amended in the Shop Committee-Management meeting of July 6, 1943, by adding the following statement: "This is also a violation of National Agreement Paragraph 63."
Umpire’s Decision:
(Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America, C.I.O. Local #235 and General Motors Corporation—Chevrolet Gear & Axle Division—Cases C-105, C-109, C-120.
The three employee grievances in this case have been combined by the parties for a single decision. The first of these, which was presented by Employee M. on July 7, 1943, reads: "Management is violating local seniority agreement by putting employees with no seniority on grinding when I am on the waiting list for grinding." The second and third grievances were presented by Employee D. on July 7, 1943 and July 5, 1943, respectively. The first of these refers to D.’s status as a Committeeman and reads as follows: "I am being discriminated against by Supt. O’C. for Union activity. My name has been on the waiting list for Grinder for 1 year. The available list is now exhausted and new employees are being placed on Grinders while Supt. O’C. refuses to have me placed on Grinder because I am a Committeeman." The final grievance reads: "Management is violating the Local Agreement by putting on employees with no seniority on grinders when I am on the waiting list." This grievance was amended in the Shop Committee-Management meeting of July 6. 1943, by adding the following statement: "This is also a violation of National Agreement Paragraph 63." While the above grievances do not mention the fact, the issue in this case really concerns the rights of the complainants for promotion to jobs (from existing "waiting lists") that were filled by newly hired female employees. A hearing on these three combined grievances was held in Detroit on October 28, 1943.
Nature of Case On May 26, 1943, increased production demands, plus losses of personnel to the armed forces, necessitated the adoption of a schedule of six days per week at the Chevrolet Gear and Axle Division. In order to keep the weekly working hours of the employees within reason, management began to hire a large number of female employees. The physical limitations of women and the regulations of the State Labor Laws necessitated the placing of women within limited types of jobs. Consequently, Management found it necessary to place the new female employees on jobs within the higher rated classifications as well as within the lower rated jobs. While some of the female employees were moved from lower rated jobs to higher rated jobs, the large majority of openings were filled by newly hired female employees who had not previously worked in the plant. When female employees were brought into the plant and assigned to various jobs, complaints arose from the male employees who were on the so-called "waiting lists" pending possible promotion to higher rated classifications. These male employees complained that the placing of women in the jobs just above them in rate prevented the male employees from gaining the promotions to which they would ordinarily have been entitled. The grievances covered by this decision are simply illustrative of a large number of grievances that were filed about the same time. At the hearing on these three cases, however, it was indicated that the parties might well use the decision in these cases to settle the other pending grievances. Union Claim While the Union presented specific details with respect to the two individuals who filed the instant grievances, the Umpire does not deem it pertinent to cite these particular facts. The general arguments common to each of the grievances represent the real significance of the case. The local Union contends that Management violated Paragraph 63 of the October 19, 1942 ‘Agreement by placing female employees on various jobs while male employees, who were awaiting promotion to such jobs, remained in their previous classifications. It notes that Paragraph 63 states that in the advancement of employees to high paid jobs, when ability, merit and capacity are equal, employees with the longest seniority will be given preference. The two complainants are claimed by the Union to have possessed greater ability, merit and capacity than the women employees who were given the available jobs. The Union reasons, then, that Management did not consider the ability, merit and capacity of the available male employees to fill the various jobs, and consequently violated Paragraph 63 of the October 19, 1942 Agreement. The Union also contends that Management has violated past practice with respect to the waiting lists by hiring new female employees instead of promoting male employees from the waiting lists. The Union holds that the employee with the greatest seniority whose name appears on the waiting list should be promoted when an opening occurs in the occupational group to which the employee has requested promotion. When Management failed to follow this procedure, and brought female employees into various jobs without considering the promotion of the complainants who were on the waiting lists, the Union contends that the principle of the waiting list was violated. In the cases here at issue, the Union seeks to have the two complainants promoted to the classifications to which they feel they would have been promoted had female employees not been brought into the plant. In addition, the Union seeks to have the two men granted back pay for all monies lost by them through failure to receive the promotions as of the date of their respective grievances. Corporation Position The Corporation emphatically denies that the employment of females at this plant violated the written local seniority agreement or the October 19, 1942 National Agreement. The Corporation maintains that the right to hire employees is the sole responsibility of Management under Paragraph 8 of the National Agreement, and notes that this right was upheld by the Umpire in Decision C-75 that involved a similar issue. The Union’s charge of a violation of the local seniority agreement with respect to waiting lists, is also denied by the Corporation. It notes that this section simply provides that "a waiting list shall be kept by the plant superintendent of employees requesting to go on another shift". It maintains that this provision does not preclude the hiring of new employees for higher rated jobs, nor does it specify the manner in which the waiting lists shall be used for promotions, transfers, etc. Management is not committed by agreement or practice to a policy of filling all job openings from a waiting list, the Corporation reasons. In fact, it is strenuously maintained that the established practice at this Division has been to place new employees on any jobs requiring their services. The charge of discrimination for Union activity contained in Case C-109, is denied by the Corporation with the observation that this charge has not been supported by written or verbal evidence.
Observations and Decision of the Umpire No provision of the October 19, 1942 National Agreement, of the local wage agreement, or of the local seniority agreement limits Management of the Chevrolet Gear and Axle Division as to the manner in which it may hire new employees. If there was any provision in any of these agreements that required Management to hire new employees into the lowest rated jobs or into clearing groups, there may have been some merit in the present grievances. However, in the complete absence of any such provisions, Management of the Chevrolet Gear and Axle Division has a right to hire employees for higher rated jobs and to place them directly into such jobs. The claims presented in the instant grievances were not affected in any manner simply because female employees are involved. There is no more of a limitation with respect to the hiring of female employees than there is with male employees. Management’s right to place these employees in higher rated jobs has not been affected by any agreement provisions. The contention of the Union that consideration must be given to the ability, merit and capacity of the complainants to fill the available jobs, is not correctly made in the present instances. The female employees here concerned were not employees who had been promoted after a period of time on the company payroll. Paragraph 63 would be of significance in the advancement of persons already on the payroll of the company, but is not compelling when the employee who is given a particular job is a new employee and is in no sense being advanced to a higher paying job from a lower rated job. Paragraph 63 of the National Agreement, therefore, was not applicable in the instances covered by this decision. The inevitable conclusion that must result from the reasoning included in this decision is that the complainants had no merit in their contentions. Their requests for transfers are really requests for promotion which obviously the Umpire could not possibly grant. However, in view of the reasoning here presented, the entire requests made by the complainants must be denied. The Umpire notes that on August 19, 1943, the two parties reached an agreement to settle the various issues concerning the employment of women at this Division. This agreement should serve to eliminate many of the grievances which have been filed over the question of the employment of women in specific jobs at this Division. It is hoped that the present decision will eliminate the remainder of such grievances.
Decision
Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR. UMPIRE November 29, 1943. |