|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-358 May 24, 1945
Alleged Improper Transfer
GRIEVANCE: Delco-Remy—Muncie—Case C-62 "They are transferring a man from 996 to 998 and putting him on a utility job when there are men with more seniority that should have the right to that job."
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 489 and General Motors Corporation Delco Remy—Muncie—Case C-62
On September 21st, 1944, Employee S. was transferred from the Record Clerk classification in Department 996 to the Utility classification in Department 998. The complainant, Employee H., protests this transfer on the ground that a number of other employees then working in Department 998 had greater seniority than S. and should have been considered for the job. S.’s seniority date is November 16, 1939. He had originally been advanced to a Utility job in Department 998 on October 4th, 1943. On February 21st, 1944, he had been transferred without change in rate to Department 996, to fill the vacancy left by E., a Record Clerk who had entered military service. On September 18th, 1944, E. returned from the Army and was given back his old job. Though in the meantime S.’s former Utility job had been filled, Management decided that another Utility Operator was needed in Department 998, in connection with its rapidly developing overseas business. S. was therefore transferred to that job, again with no change in rate. The Union contends that S.’s original promotion to the Utility classification, in October, 1943, was improper and disregarded the rights of other employees in the same department who had greater seniority than S. and who were at the time his superiors in ability, merit and capacity. Its failure to protest the promotion at the time, it says, was due only to the fact that S. had injured his hand and that the Union believed he would have an easier time in the Utility job than in performing the regular routine work of the department. The Union urges, however, that S. should not be allowed to profit indefinitely from the concession then made to him and that the earlier willingness of his fellows in view of his injury, to subordinate their rights to his need, should not now react to their disadvantage. Appealing as this position may be on its face, it cannot be sustained. S.’s status as a Utility Man must be held to have been definitely established when he was advanced to the job without protest in 1943. If a transfer or promotion is to be protested at all, proper claim must be made within a reasonable time after it is effected. If none is made, the potential claimants must be held to have waived their rights in the matter. Employees who are debating whether or not to present such claims, should understand that such a waiver is permanent and cannot later be withdrawn. Had S., then, remained continuously in Department 998 as a Utility Man, his assignment to the new Utility job created to handle overseas shipping would clearly have been unobjectionable. Is the case, then, altered in any way by his interim service as a Record Clerk in Department 996? The Umpire does not believe so. No change in pay was involved in his transfers to and from the Record Clerk’s job. Neither of them involved a promotion and neither, therefore, can properly give rise to any claims based on Paragraph 63. It appears that H., the complainant, is not himself a candidate for the Utility job and that at no time during the discussion of this case in the Grievance Procedure has the Union definitely identified the employees whose seniority rights it claims should be considered. Under Paragraph 28 a designated member of a group having a grievance has every right to file a grievance on their behalf. Since H. does not consider that his own rights were infringed, however, his right to be considered "a member of a group having a grievance" is dubious at best. Intelligent handling of cases of alleged improper promotion, moreover, is well nigh impossible unless the aggrieved employees are sufficiently identified to permit consideration of their abilities, merits and capacities. Even if this grievance were not otherwise lacking in merit, it would have to be dismissed for lack of such identification.
Decision The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE May 24, 1945. |