|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-315 February 12, 1945
Propriety Of A Promotion Under Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet—Bloomfield—Case C-73 "In accordance with Par. 63, one of us should have been made checker instead of F.C."
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 713 and General Motors Corporation—Chevrolet—Bloomfield—Case C-73
This grievance raises the question as to whether Local Management properly applied the provisions of Paragraph 63 of the National Agreement in promoting Employee C. to the position of Checker in the Parts Warehouse in preference to either of the two complainants, F.T. and N. There is little dispute over the essential facts in the case. In July, 1944, Management determined that two additional Checkers were needed in the Warehouse. The following six employees from the Warehouse seniority list were found in line for consideration:
Management determined that Employee W.T. stood head and shoulders above the other five employees in ability, merit and capacity and promoted him to one of the two Checker vacancies. This promotion was not protested by any of the other employees. Management alleges that it then reviewed the qualifications of the remaining five employees and decided that Employees E. and C. were approximately equal in merit, ability and capacity, for promotion to the Checker job and that they were definitely superior to the remaining three. As Employee E. had the highest seniority the vacancy was first offered to him. When he declined, the job was offered to C. who accepted. As may be noted from the above table, Employee C. was junior in seniority to the other five employees. The Union alleges that Employees F.T. and N. were at least the equal of C. in ability, merit and capacity, and that in view of their greater seniority one of them should have received the promotion. Because of their experience as Packers in the Parts Warehouse, the Union claims, both F.T. and N. are thoroughly conversant with the various parts which the Checker must identify and with their locations. It is emphasized, moreover, that he is superior to C. in education, as he holds a degree in Engineering from the Newark Technical College. In reply, Management points out that C. had experience as an Unloader in the Export Department in 1928 and 1929; that he worked as an Export Material Handler in 1934 and 1935; that he was a Material Handler in the Parts Warehouse from 1935 to 1940; and that he served as a Stock Picker from 1940 to 1944. It emphasizes particularly this latter experience, since a Stock Picker must work in all parts of the Warehouse, become familiar with the wide variety of parts handled, and learn the procedure followed in filling orders. Though Employee E. had spent far more time as a Packer than as a Packer than as a Stock Picker, it was felt that his general ability and intelligence coupled with his six years of greater experience made him approximately the equal of Employee C. Employees F. T. and N., on the other hand, had spent most of their time between 1934 and 1942 as Parts Dippers in the Enamel Room. From May, 1942, until the present they were assigned to the packing of parts for shipment. Management asserts, moreover, that even if the experience factor is discounted, F.T. and N. have shown a lack of initiative and of ability to carry out job assignments without close supervision which would make it impossible to consider them the equals of either E. or C. On the record in this case the Umpire must hold that no violation of Paragraph 63 has been established. In a case of this sort the burden of proof is upon the Union to show that Management’s judgment of the relative ability, merit and capacity of the employees was faulty. It has not sustained that burden here. The Umpire cannot discount the greater experience of both C. and E. in handling parts in the Warehouse, or hold that this factor is necessarily overcome by the fact that F.T. holds a degree in an unrelated educational field, or by the alleged fact that both F.T. and N. have proven diligent workmen on the jobs they have been given to perform. It is true, of course, that no two employees can be found who are the exact equal of each other in all the elements of experience, skill, diligence, and intelligence, that are covered by the contractual phrase "ability, merit and capacity." For that reason this Office has required that when no employee stands "head and shoulders" above his fellows, "Management may select several employees whose ability, merit and capacity are adjudged by Management to be approximately equal. The individual in the group with the greatest seniority may then be selected for promotion." By prescribing only approximate equality for the group under consideration, prior Umpires clearly believed that Management should not be allowed to defeat the purposes of Paragraph 63 by relying on differences in skill and ability which are minor and unsubstantial. On the other hand, by leaving the selection of this group to Management, the Umpires clearly indicated that the initial judgment of ability, merit and capacity was a Management function and was not to be overturned save upon clear proof of error. In the instant case, the Union’s showing has not been sufficient to offset the presumption in favor of Management’s judgment. The grievance must accordingly be dismissed. Decision The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE February 12, 1945. |