|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-300 January 23, 1945
Appeal From A Disciplinary Layoff
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet-Flint—Case C-409 "Charge unjust penalty. Request back pay. Foreman’s order was unreasonable and detrimental to my health."
Umpire’s Decision: The grievance is dismissed. (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—Case C-409
On June 29, 1944, Employee P. was sent home for a week for refusing to work at his job of paint spraying in violation of Shop Rule 15: "Refusal to obey orders of Foreman or other Supervision. (One day or more to discharge.)" In this grievance he claims that the penalty was unjust and seeks back pay for the time lost. This Office has uniformly recognized the principle that employees are required to obey the orders of Supervision and may normally protest the reasonableness of such orders only through the established channels of the grievance machinery. It is here argued, however, that where employees are ordered to take actions which would involve unreasonable danger to life, limb or physical health, an exception to this rule should properly be made. The Umpire does not find it necessary to rule conclusively upon this contention in the present case. For it is clear that even were such an exception to be recognized, the burden of proof would be on the Union and the Employee to prove the unreasonableness of the order and the abnormal danger to the employee which compliance with it would entail. No such satisfactory proof has been forthcoming in the instant case. There is, indeed, evidence that P. had sinus trouble, that he had visited the First Aid stations for treatments listed on the records as "gargle, aspirin, etc., miscellaneous," and that his private physician believed that he might be allergic to the paint he was using. On the other hand, the record shows that P. was twice examined at the Plant Medical Department and that following his complaint his job was studied by the Plant Safety Director. Neither of these departments found that there was any necessary connection between P.’s sinus trouble and his occupation of paint spraying. As the Umpire has previously indicated in Decision C-276, the Umpire cannot properly review the findings of a Plant Medical Department on an issue of this sort. Such findings are binding upon him unless they are shown by the Union to be arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by reasonable evidence. The Umpire must therefore accept the findings of the Plant Medical Department in this case as justifying the Foreman in ordering P. to continue working on the paint spraying job. The Umpire is confirmed in this conclusion by the presence in this record of strong evidence that P. had frequently feigned illness or injury in an effort to secure a transfer to a better-paying or more agreeable job. Under the circumstances, his penalty was justified and his request for its rescission must be denied. One aspect of this case, which the parties appear to have overlooked deserves some comment. Even if P. had presented to the Umpire conclusive evidence that he was ill with sinus trouble on June 29th, 1944, the Umpire could not properly have awarded him back pay. Satisfactory evidence of illness, indeed, would have entitled P. to an automatic sick leave of absence under Paragraph 116 of the Agreement and would have justified the Umpire in directing that P.s’ employment record be corrected to show such a leave of absence rather than the disciplinary layoff which was in fact imposed. It must be clear, however, that a claim for a sick leave of absence is by its very nature inconsistent with a claim for back pay. Management was under no contractual obligation to transfer P. to another job even upon proof that he was allergic to paint spraying. P.’s claim for back pay would therefore have had to rest upon the contention that Management was responsible for his failure to earn money at paint spraying during the week of his layoff. The Umpire could hardly have recognized that contention in the face of P.’s assertion that even had Management not laid him off he would have been physically unable to perform the paint spraying job.
Decision The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE January 23, 1945. |