|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-157 January 8, 1944
Promotion Under Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: Pontiac Motor—Case C-35 "Group—Violation Paragraph No. 63. Ask back pay. Other advancements out of line."
Umpire’s Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 653 and General Motors Corporation—Pontiac Motor Division—Case C-35
On April 26, 1943, Employee J.H. presented a grievance which purported to be a group grievance by a number of men protesting the promotion of Employee L.C. to the classification of Relief Man in April, 1943. The grievance reads: "Group—Violation Paragraph No. 63. Ask back pay. Other advancements out of line." The first hearing on this matter was held in Detroit on September 8, 1943. At that time the Umpire determined that the parties had largely confined themselves to a comparison of the ability, merit and capacity of the signer of the grievance (J.H.) and the employee who had been promoted (L.C.) However, in view of certain inconsistencies as to facts, the grievance was returned to the parties for their further consideration. A second hearing on the case was held on October 29, 1943, at which time the Umpire again found that the parties were not in agreement as to certain important facts in the case. Immediately after this second hearing, the Umpire returned the case to the parties with a request for specific information that would indicate the exact work record of Employees J.H. and L.C. in 1942 and 1943. The parties accepted the second return of the case and prepared the necessary data which they mutually considered before presenting it to the Umpire. The third and last hearing on this matter was held in the Office of the Umpire on December 9, 1943. The present decision is the final disposition of a case that has required a series of three hearings to develop all pertinent material.
Nature of Case In April, 1943, an opening occurred for a Relief Man on the Diesel Block line in Department 681 of the Pontiac Motor Division. Employee L.C. (seniority date, March 10, 1936) was advanced from the classification of Swing Grinder to the classification of Relief Man with an increase of five cents per hour in his rate. Employee J.H. (seniority date, November 26, 1935), who at the time had established his seniority in Department 683, filed the instant grievance as a group grievance protesting the advancement of Employee L.C. While the grievance was filed in the form of a group grievance, the Union has consistently stressed only the claim of Employee J.H. to the job in question. In fact, it was for this reason that the Umpire directed the parties to present specific data with respect to these two men and confined the final two hearings entirely to this aspect of the case. The present decision, therefore, concerns only the contention that Employee J.H. should have been given the job to which Employee L.C. was promoted. Union Claim The Union’s original position was to the effect that Employee L.C. did not stand "head and shoulders" above the other employees in the group of available men who could have filled the opening for a Relief Man. It presented the work experience of Employee J.H. as a means of proving that the signer of the instant grievance was at least equal to the promoted employee with respect to ability, merit and capacity, and that he should have been given the promotion because of his greater seniority. Originally the Union presented material which contended that Employee J.H. had experience in the work of Department 681 that was equivalent to that of Employee L.C. In the latter hearings on the matter, this contention was not particularly stressed, but it was held that his work experience prior to the development of the Diesel work proved Employee J.H. more versatile than Employee L.C. The Union has asked, therefore, that Employee J.H. be advanced to the job of Relief Man in place of Employee L.C., and that he be paid back pay for all the time that the job has been held by Employee L.C. Corporation Position In the three written statements presented by the Corporation in connection with this case, a series of facts has been developed in detail to support its contention that the ability, merit and capacity of Employee L.C. was far greater than that of the complainant, Employee J.H. This material was particularly stressed in the written statement presented at the hearing of December 9, 1943. In its final statement on the matter, Management contended that the ability, merit and capacity of Employee L.C. for the opening on the Diesel Block line in Department 681 was far greater than was true in the case of Employee J.H. whose experience in this work had been rather meager. A considerable part of the Corporation’s briefs concerned its contention that Employee J.H. was not properly one of a group who could present a group grievance. Inasmuch as Employee J.H. was in Department 683 at the time of the promotion, and a considerable number of men with greater seniority than J.H. in Department 681 did not file a specific grievance, Management reasons that Employee J.H. was not the proper person to file a group grievance. Only if Employee J.H. had been a member of a group directly affected by the promotion, Management reasons, could he have properly filed a group grievance protesting such a promotion.
Observations and Decision of the Umpire During the several hearings on this case, the Umpire indicated clearly by his questioning that he was concerned only with the claims of Employee J.H. A conclusion on this point was necessary because this employee was claiming that his ability, merit and capacity entitled him to a promotion to a job in another department. Different supervision headed the two departments and there was nothing about the employees or their work that would permit for any grouping of them. Employee J.H., therefore, could not bring any other employees under a group grievance simply by filing his own grievance and calling it a group grievance that was applicable to any persons who might conceivably be aggrieved by the promotion. For these reasons, the Umpire is confining this decision to that part of the grievance that has status, namely, the contention of Employee J.H. that he should have been promoted to the job given to Employee L.C. The very detailed material presented to the Umpire, after several attempts to get the parties to develop such detail and to give their joint consideration to the pertinent material, convinces the Umpire that Employee J.H. should not have been grouped with Employee L.C. for promotion to the job of Relief Man. This is not to say that Employee L.C. stood "head and shoulders" above all other employees available for the job. The only conclusion that has been reached in this instance is that the ability, merit and capacity of Employee J.H. did not warrant the conclusion that he possessed approximately the same ability, merit and capacity as Employee L.C. to permit him to be grouped with that employee before a choice was made for promotion. It must be concluded, therefore, that the promotion of Employee L.C., insofar as the complainant J.H. is concerned, represented conformance with Paragraph 63 of the October 19, 1942 Agreement. The claim of Employee J.H. is denied.
Decision
Signed G. Allan Dash, Jr. UMPIRE January 8, 1944. |