|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-378 July 23, 1945
Claim Of Improper Promotion
GRIEVANCE: Oldsmobile-Lansing—Case C-67 "I request to be given set-up job in accordance to Paragraph 63 of the Agreement. Seniority of F.K. 3-9-28. Has 18 months of experience on set-up. L.S. seniority date of 4-20-34 was given this job with no previous experience."
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—Case C-67
On February 4th, 1945, Management promoted Employee S., seniority date 4-20-34, to the job of setting up certain external grinders, engravers, and Cincinnati Mills in the 75 Mm. Cannon Department. In this grievance, Employee K., seniority date 3-9-28, claims that at the time this promotion was made he was equal if not superior to S. in ability, merit and capacity, and that under the terms of Paragraph 63 of the National Agreement he should have received the promotion. The Union asks that the job be declared vacant and that the Umpire direct it be filled in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 63, giving due consideration to the ability and experience of Employee K. and discounting the experience which Employee S. gained while on the job. Between March 28th, 1942, and November 8th, 1943, K. had worked as a Set-Up man in the 37 Mm. Cannon Department. Prior to his promotion, on the other hand, S. had never worked in the Job Setter classification. The Union contends that this fact alone proves that on the basis of experience K. was more qualified for the job than was S. and that he should have been placed on the job. Management contends, however, that K.’s set-up work in the 37 Mm. Cannon Department was very different from that which he would have been called upon to perform in the 75 Mm. Cannon Department. It conceded that he would have been able without further training to set up the engravers and the external grinders, but stated that without additional instruction and experience he would not have been able to perform difficult set-ups on the Cincinnati Mills. S., on the other hand, had worked on every operation in the 75 Mm. Cannon Department. As a relief man he had had to fill in at one time or another on every one of the machines. Though he had never been classified as a Job Setter, he had put in approximately 176 hours of set-up work in the regular Job Setter’s absence. He was therefore able to take over the job with no additional instruction or training. As has frequently been explained in past Umpire Decisions, nothing in Paragraph 63 requires Management to give employees an opportunity to try out in higher paid jobs before employees with lower seniority but greater experience are promoted to them. An employee’s rights under that Paragraph depend upon the ability, merit and capacity which he has at the time the promotion is made, not upon that which he might acquire if he were given a few weeks or months on the job. During the Umpire’s investigation of this case, the complainant frankly admitted that without further training he would not have been able to perform all of the set-up work on the Cincinnati Mills. As S. was able to perform that work immediately upon his promotion, K.’s admission is decisive of this case. He is held not to have been the equal of S. in ability, merit and capacity and, therefore, despite his greater seniority he was not entitled to the job. During the Umpire’s investigation, some suggestion was made that Management had attempted, in this instance, to defeat the purposes of Paragraph 63 by taking a favored low seniority employee and, with an eye to fitting him for his prospective promotion, giving him special advance training which was denied to other employees. If the Umpire found evidence of any such deliberate attempt to "stack the deck" he would be quick to correct it. There is no showing, however, of any such effort in this case. The special opportunities for training which S. received while working as a relief man came to him only through the normal routines of plant administration. There is evidence, indeed, that the other employees, including the complainant, were reluctant to take the relief assignments from which S. eventually profited. Under the circumstances it must be held that no rights of the complainant have been infringed.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE July 23, 1945. |