|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-373 July 9, 1945
Alleged Improper Classification
GRIEVANCE: Oldsmobile—Lansing—Cases C-51, C-52 "We request the $1.11 rate for working on a motor driven conveyor. The rate for a conveyor attendant is no lower than $1.11. We, also, request back pay from the date conveyor started."
Umpire’s Decision: The grievance is dismissed. (Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 652 and General Motors Corporation—Oldsmobile—Lansing—Cases C-51, C-52
At the time these grievances were filed, the eight complainants were employed in the "Stores and Shipping—Cannon Parts" Department at the task of wrapping small parts for overseas shipment. Prior to August, 1944, these parts were carried in wire baskets to and from the wrapping tables to the tanks where they were covered with sealing wax or cellulose solution. On August 1st, 1944, this phase of the operation was changed by the installation of a motor-driven conveyor. The employees responsible for the inner wrap would remove the part from a conveyor, wrap it and then replace it on the conveyor where it was carried to the employees responsible for the outer wrap, and thence to the tanks of sealing wax. In these grievances it is claimed that the addition of the motor conveyor should have resulted in the reclassification of the complainants from "Stock Picker Counter Bundler and Packer" ($.95 to $1.05) to "Conveyor Attendant" ($1.01 to $1.11). The Umpire must deny the claim. It is apparent to him from his examination that the operation is still essentially a wrapping operation and that the change in the manner in which the parts reach the wrappers has not substantially altered the job. The Union contends, it is true, that the employees are now forced to keep up with the conveyor and must remain at all times at their stations unless relieved. In this argument, however, the Union is confusing a question of proper classification with a question of fair production standards. It can hardly be argued that the classification of employees on an Assembly Line should change with every variation in the speed of the conveyor. Nor can it reasonably be contended that freedom to abandon their work station at will during working hours was a factor in the original classification and rating of the wrapping job. The Union refers, however, to Umpire Decision C-160, in which the Umpire found that the introduction of a conveyor had so altered a shell-packing job as to require the negotiation of a new classification and rate. Study of the evidence presented in that case, however, reveals that the introduction of the conveyor had substantially altered the manual operations performed by the Shell Packer. It is to be noted, furthermore, that the Umpire in that case declined to grant the Union’s request to place the job in the "Conveyor Attendant" classification but ruled only that the introduction of the conveyor had so changed its elements as to make it a new job within the meaning of Paragraph 112. The "Conveyor Attendant" classification as used in this plant applies to employees whose essential function is the loading or unloading of a conveyor. It cannot properly be applied to jobs such as those here in question in which the removal and replacement of material from a conveyor is merely incidental to the processing of the material itself. When their jobs were first classified, the essential function of the complaining employees was the wrapping of parts. The introduction of the conveyor has not sufficiently changed the nature of this operation to justify a holding that it is a new job under Paragraph 112. The grievance must accordingly be dismissed.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE July 9, 1945. |