|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-152 December 28, 1943
Promotion Under Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet Bay City—Case C-32 "According to Par. 63, I should have been advanced to a machine setter instead of a younger man."
Umpire’s Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 362 and General Motors Corporation—Chevrolet Bay City Division—Case C-32
The employee grievance in this case, which was presented by D.S. on July 28, 1943, reads as follows: "According to Par. 63, I should have been advanced to a machine setter instead of a younger man." A hearing on this matter was held in Saginaw, Michigan, on December 1, 1943.
Nature of Case In the months of June and July, 1943, four employees were advanced to the position of job setter on a group of automatic screw machines at the Chevrolet Bay City Division. On July 28, 1943 (from one month and two days to nine days after the above promotions), Employee D.S. filed a grievance that did not specifically refer to any of these particular promotions. However, in subsequent steps of the grievance procedure, the Shop Committee referred to the four individuals indicated below.
It is the Union’s contention that Employee D.S. has ability, merit and capacity equal to these four employees, and that he should have been promoted in the place of any one of them because of his greater seniority. Union Claim The Union notes that Employee D.S. had 16 years of service as an automatic machine operator, and in this time produced a large number of parts. Consequently, the Union feels that Management’s action of promoting four other employees amounted to "passing over a top flight automatic operator with greater seniority". It holds that none of the four men promoted "are particularly outstanding", and that Employee D.S. was their equal in ability, merit and capacity. It asks that he be promoted to the job of machine setter on automatic screw machines, and that he be paid back pay retroactively to the date of his grievance to the extent of the difference between the rate he received and the rate for the machine setter classification. Corporation Position Management asserts that several factors kept Employee D.S. out of the group of employees with whom he claims equality. It holds that the promotions of the four individuals cited by the Union were strictly on the basis of seniority within a group which Management felt possessed approximately the same ability, merit and capacity to fill the position of a job setter on automatic screw machines. In support of the promotions of the four men here in question, Management has made a series of statements. It observes that Employee F.R. had previous job setting experience, was an above-average operator on all jobs and frequently assisted in job set-up work over and above the requirements of an operator. It notes that Employee E.W. had proven himself an all-around operator who could readily adapt himself to all of the machines in the department, and who had made several outstanding machine improvements. Employee A.B., it asserts, had previous experience as a job setter at this plant and at the A.C. Spark Plug Division in Flint, Michigan. It concludes by stating that the fourth man, Employee A.S., was included because of three months’ prior experience as a job setter, plus long experience on New Britain machines. In addition, Management maintains that all four of these men have demonstrated their ability to diagnose operational troubles on machines and remove the cause for such troubles. Finally it holds that all four of the promoted men greatly excel Employee D.S. with respect to gaining the cooperation of their fellow workmen. While Management admits that Employee D.S. is "a capable automatic screw machine operator on specific phases of the work", it contends that he has had considerable trouble in getting new jobs started and lacks the necessary initiative to perform the job setter’s work. Specific instances are noted that have caused a rather negative reaction by Management as to this individual’s potentialities as a job setter. It is pointed out that on a particular nut job it was necessary to remove him because "he complained of too much work". On two screw and stud jobs, it is contended that he frequently burned the turning tool rollers by failing to watch the tool and to grind when necessary. On another screw and bolt job, it is said that he "could not get average production". On the job which he was performing just before the hearing on this matter, it is noted that his production was good, but that his percentage of scrap was very high. For the reasons noted above, Management contends that Employee D.S. should not have been considered equal in ability, merit and capacity to the four men who were promoted to set-up work in June, and July, 1943.
Observations and Decision of the Umpire At the hearing on this case, the Umpire indicated his feeling that there was a lack of timeliness in the instant grievance at least with respect to the promotion of Employee F.R. The Umpire is convinced that the same conclusion is proper in the case of the promotion of Employee E.W. In both of these instances the employees had obtained such experience in the machine set-up work by the time this grievance was filed that a consideration of their qualifications could only have concluded that their existent abilities, merits and capacities to fill openings in the classification of machine setter on automatic screw machines were far above those of Employee D.S. The contentions which Employee D.S. has raised with respect to the promotions of Employees A.B. and A.S. do not find any real support. Both of these men had previous job setting experience, and already had proven themselves as to their ability and capacity to perform the job setting tasks. While this proven ability may not have been on automatic screw machines, it nevertheless indicated their capacity to perform all of the elements of such work when a knowledge of the automatic screw machines was also available. Of real importance are the negative aspects that must be considered in evaluating the ability, merit and capacity of Employee D.S. with respect to the available set-up jobs. In the several ways cited by Management, Employee D.S. had proven himself considerably below the promoted employees with respect to ability, merit and capacity. Support cannot be given to the Union’s position that Management’s failure to assess disciplinary action to control the negative aspects of the employee’s work should eliminate such factors from consideration when potential promotion is involved. Even if disciplinary action had been taken the factors would not have been removed from the man’s record. Management’s failure to take disciplinary action does not excuse or remove these factors from the work record of the employee. It is proper, therefore, to consider such matters when a promotion to an available opening is contemplated. For the reasons noted herein, the Umpire is convinced that Employee D.S. did not possess ability, merit and capacity equivalent to Employees A.B. and A.S., who were promoted to the job of set-up men on automatic screw machines on July 19, 1943. It must be held, therefore, that all promotions here involved were in compliance with Paragraph 63 of the National Agreement. The claims of Employee D.S. are denied.
Decision
Signed G. ALLAN DASH, JR. UMPIRE December 28, 1943. |