|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-361 May 29, 1945
Alleged Improper Promotion
GRIEVANCE: Buick Motor—Melrose Park—Case C-211 "I protest Management’s decision in making another employee, with less seniority than I, a utility man. I claim that I should have the opportunity to prove my merit."
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 6 and General Motors Corporation—Buick Motors—Melrose—Case C-211
Employee T. claims in this grievance that the promotion of Employee K. to the Utility classification on January 13, 1945, was in violation of Paragraph 63 of the National Agreement. The Union asks that K.’s Utility job be declared vacant and that in filling it due consideration be given to T.’s qualifications. K. is junior in seniority to T., but has had thirteen months’ prior experience as a Utility Man in the same department, while T. has had no such experience. Management claims that this experience obviously made K. the superior in ability, merit and capacity. T. is claiming, it suggests, not that he is now K.’s equal, but that he could become so if given a chance to "prove his merit" on the job. Under Paragraph 63, Management states, men must be selected for promotion on the basis of their existing, rather than potential, worth. On the evidence before him, the Umpire must agree with Management. The Union has made little or no effort to prove that T. is now K.’s equal in ability, merit and capacity. It has based its case largely upon the allegation that because K.’s father was barber to the Assistant General Superintendent, K.’s promotions were gained by favoritism, and the thirteen months’ experience in the Utility classification which resulted from the first promotion should accordingly be discounted. Aside from this experience, it claims, there could be no possible basis for considering K.’s abilities superior to those of T. Favoritism in promotions is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of Paragraph 63. Had the Union protested K.’s first promotion at the time it was made, proved that it was motivated by improper considerations, and shown that it infringed the rights of other employees, the Umpire would have been justified in rescinding it and declaring the job vacant. Having failed to challenge it at that time, however, the Umpire cannot now be allowed to attack it indirectly by outlawing from consideration the experience and skill it gave him. Once a promotion has passed without timely protest, the status and experience gained by the promoted employee must be accepted as valid and given proper consideration in Management’s further dealings with him. In view of K.’s experience, Management had reasonable grounds for concluding that K.’s relative ability, merit and capacity warranted his promotion. In the absence of proof that Management erred in this conclusion, the Union’s unsupported allegations of favoritism would not by themselves justify the Umpire in declaring the job vacant.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE May 29, 1945. |