OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE

No. C-341

May 1, 1945

Discharge For Repeated Absenteeism

GRIEVANCE:

Eastern Aircraft—Linden—Case—C-763

"I am being released unjustly. Request back pay for all time lost. This release was given because of Union activities."

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 595

and

General Motors Corporation—Eastern Aircraft—Linden—Case C-763

This grievance is brought to test the justice of the discharge of Employee L., on August 21, 1944, for violation of Shop Rule 38: "Repeated violation of shop regulations or safety rules."

Employee L. had originally been hired on May 11, 1937. During the first five years of his employment he received two warnings and a reprimand. (A discharge for the use of abusive language to a Supervisor was rescinded by the Umpire and must be disregarded.) This record, while not good, was certainly not exceptionally bad. Thereafter, however, he began to receive warnings, reprimands and penalties in increasing numbers for absenteeism, leaving his job without permission, wasting time, and like offenses. This portion of his record, as set forth in Management’s brief is as follows:

November 4, 1942:

Reprimand for leaving his job before the end of the shift. (Filed Grievance No. 315360, appealed to second step on November 10, 1942. Decision unchanged and appeal abandoned.)

January 19, 1943:

Reprimand for leaving his department without permission during working hours and remaining away excessive lengths of time and producing unsatisfactory amount of work. (No record of grievance.)

February 11, 1943:

Reprimand for causing confusion in his department and using loud and abusive language to Supervision. (Filed Grievance No. 314955, appealed to third step as Appeal Case C-102. Penalty unchanged, appeal abandoned.)

May 20, 1943:

Disciplinary layoff of one week for habitually leaving his department during working hours without permission, and constant abuse of bargaining time, and leaving his department within the first hour of the shift. (Filed Grievance No. 318216, appealed to third step as Appeal Case C-235. Penalty unchanged, appeal abandoned.)

October 14, 1943:

Warned for leaving his department without permission, and failing to keep a proper record of his time spent on grievance. (No grievance filed.)

November 16, 1943:

Upon his assignment to a different shift, his foreman called his attention to his attendance record for the months of September and October, 1943, which showed that out of 61 days, he was absent 28 days, 12 of which were excuseable as he attended a Union Convention. He was in the plant only 11 full days during the period, having reported late or left early on the remaining 22 days. He was informed that the quantity of his work and the time on the job would have to improve. (No grievance filed.)

November 24, 1943:

Disciplinary layoff of two weeks for deliberately wasting three hours of Company time in violation of Rule 18 of "Rules for Personal Conduct." This penalty was later reduced from two weeks to one week by the Umpire. (See Umpire Decision C-182.)

April 28, 1944:

Disciplinary layoff of six weeks ending June 9, 1944, for violation of the following Plant Rules for Personal Conduct:

Rule 1 -- "Falsification of personnel records or other records."

Rule 6 -- "Habitual absence without reasonable cause."

Rule 7 -- "Habitually reporting late for work."

(No grievance filed.)

On June 24, 1944, when L. returned after his six weeks’ layoff, the record of his attendance since December 27, 1943, was reviewed with him. It was shown that during this period out of 911 available working hours, L. had worked only 622.9 hours or 63.37% and had lost 288.2 hours or 31.63%. He was told that his record would have to improve or he would be discharged.

Despite this warning, the record of L.’s attendance during the next two months showed that out of 408 available working hours, L. worked only 196.3 or 48.12%. During the entire week of August 14^th to 19^th, L. was absent without permission. Management states that this absence finally convinced it that the possibility of improving L.’s attendance record by corrective discipline had been exhausted and that his discharge was necessary.

The Union does not dispute the accuracy of Management’s figures or attempt to condone L.’s record of irresponsibility. It offers by way of excuse only the fact that during the entire period of excessive absenteeism L. had been an official of the Local Union, and that during the final months preceding his discharge he had been the Local President. The burdens of this office, the Union says, have been greatly expanded and increased during the war and frequently required L. to be away from the Plant and often from the locality. During the final week of absence, which precipitated his discharge, the Union says, L. was at the Union’s New York Regional Office. On Monday of that week, L. talked on the phone with a representative of the Plant Labor Relations Department and informed him that he was away on Union business. On Thursday, a telegram was sent to Management notifying them that he was in Washington on Union business. Though Management may have been correct in considering that neither notice was timely or proper, the Union argues, they at least indicate that L. was aware of his responsibility to the Plant and should therefore serve to mitigate his offense.

The Umpire can appreciate the heavy demands which the business of a local Union makes on its President. He cannot treat such demands, however, as an excuse for such excessive absenteeism as was here involved. Under Paragraph 119 of the Agreement, a local Union President has the right, if he chooses, to apply for a year’s leave of absence from employment, which will set him free to devote his full time to Union business and still protect his seniority. If he chooses to remain on his job at the Plant, he must accept the responsibilities which accompany that choice.

L.’s record of absenteeism was inexcusable. It indicated an indifference to his obligations as an employee which did little credit to himself or to the Union which elected him to office. In view of the record of past warnings, reprimands and layoffs, there can be no question but that the possibilities of corrective discipline had been exhausted and that Management could not reasonably hope that further penalties would bring about an improvement. The discharge is upheld.

Decision

The grievance is dismissed.

Signed, Ralph T. Seward

UMPIRE

May 1, 1945.

UMPIRE DECISION INDEX