|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-255 October 2, 1944
Alleged Violation Of Local Wage Agreement
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet Aviation Engine Plant No. 1 -- Case C-55 "Policy. Violation of Local Wage Agreement. Management setting up subclassification of Mount and Dismount at a lower rate. $1.09 an hour, when our Local Agreement has this classification as Test Operator, Mount and Dismount at $1.14. Request rate of $1.14 on this classification as negotiated and back pay."
Umpire’s Decision: The Union’s request is denied. (Entire decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 774 and General Motors Corporation—Chevrolet Aviation Engine Plant No. 1 -- Case C-55
Procedural Objections of the Corporation The above grievance, which protests an alleged violation of the local wage agreement at Chevrolet Aviation Engine Plant No. 1, was filed on June 6, 1944, by Committeeman W. In its Notice of Unadjusted Grievance, Management observed that Committeeman W.’s own rate was not in question and would not be affected by this grievance. At the Umpire hearing, held in Buffalo on September 8, 1944, the Corporation raised this point as an objection to the status of the grievance, arguing that under Paragraph 28 of the Contract grievances could only be filed by an employee "having the grievance" or by a "designated member of a group having a grievance." A similar objection has been interposed by the Corporation in respect to other grievances which allege violations of local wage agreements and which are now pending before the Umpire. The Umpire has found that a decision on the point will require a somewhat extended survey of the past practice of the parties in dealing with so-called "policy" grievances. As the Umpire finds that in any case he must decide the instant case against the Union, he sees no reason for withholding his decision pending his determination of the Corporation’s procedural objection. He is, therefore, issuing this decision on the merits with the express understanding that the decision is without prejudice to the position of either side upon the procedural issue. The Union alleges that Management is violating the terms of the local wage agreement entered into August 24, 1943, by establishing a new classification designated "Mount and Dismount" at the rate of $1.09 per hour. The original agreement provided for two classifications of employees working in the Engine Test Cells; i.e., Engine Test Operator, including Mount and Dismount -- $1.14, Engine Test Control Room Operator and/or Recorder -- $1.11. The Union argues that since the Mount and Dismount operations were included among those rated at $1.14 an hour, it is a violation of the agreement to separate them from these operations and assign to them a new and lower rate. Management claims that the rate of $1.14 was established for employees whose duties included not only the mounting and dismounting of the engines but also the performing of all the other operations involved in engine testing. It has not altered the duties of these employees. It has merely added a new booster crew of employees to aid in the physical labor of mounting and dismounting the engines. The employees in this new crew perform no testing operations whatsoever. Since they perform only one of the operations which the "test operators, including Mount and Dismount, perform," Management argues, it cannot be reasonably claimed that they are entitled to be classified along with such test operators or receive the test operators’ rate. The right of Management to set up new temporary classifications and rates for new jobs which cannot be properly placed in existing classifications by mutual agreement is clearly established by Paragraph 112 of the Agreement. The only question before the Umpire is whether or not the activities of these new booster crews are covered by the existing local wage agreement or should properly be considered to be a new job. On that issue the Umpire finds for the Corporation. The local wage agreement established a rate of $1.14 an hour for employees who were both operating the engines during their test runs and mounting and dismounting these engines. The rate, in other words, was set with both these responsibilities and skills in mind. The booster crews, on whose behalf this grievance is brought, perform only one of these functions. They need have no skill or experience in operating the engines during their test run. In the Umpire’s opinion, they are not properly covered by the wage agreement of August 24, 1943, and have been properly considered by Management as performing a new job within the meaning of Paragraph 112 of the Agreement. It appears from the discussions at the hearing that the basic question which separated the parties in this case is not raised by this grievance at all, but concerns the proper rate for the Engine Test Control Room Operators and/or Recorders. The employees in this classification are for the most part females who are physically unable to perform the work involving the mounting and dismounting of engines. For that reason, during the negotiations on the local wage agreement, Management insisted that these employees should have a somewhat lower rate than the test operators who had not only to test the engines but mount and dismount them. The Union asserts that it agreed to the lower rate for these operators at $1.11 with the reservation that if the functions of mount and dismount were ever separated from the Engine Test Operators, the Control Room Operators and/or Recorders should be brought up to $1.14. The Union asserted that the addition of booster crews has fulfilled the condition mentioned in its oral reservation, that the local wage agreement with respect to the Test Control Room Operators and/or Recorders is no longer binding and that their rates should now be raised by renegotiation. The Umpire’s jurisdiction, however, is confined to the issues raised by the grievance presented. The present grievance places at issue only the proper rate for the new booster crews who are exclusively performing the task of mounting and dismounting the engines. If the Union believes that the local wage agreement with respect to the Engine Test Control Room Operators and/or Recorders has been invalidated, and that their rates should properly be thrown open to renegotiation, it may file a grievance which will place this contention in issue. In the present case, however, this matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the Umpire to consider. For the reasons above set forth the Umpire finds that Management has not violated the local wage agreement by establishing a temporary rate of $1.09 for employees exclusively performing the operations "Engine—Mount and Dismount." The Union’s request will accordingly be denied.
Decision The Union’s request is denied. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE October 2, 1944. |