|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. C-402 October 22, 1945
Loss of Seniority Under Paragraph 64(c).
GRIEVANCE: Pontiac Motor—Case C-303 "I request that my seniority be restored. My foreman was properly notified as per Pars. No. 64-C of our Nat’l Agreement."
Umpire’s Decision: Employee T.’s seniority shall be restored and his employment record shall be altered accordingly. (Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 653 and General Motors Corporation—Pontiac Motors—Case C-303
Employee T., the complainant in this grievance, was a crane operator in the Foundry, holding seniority back to May 13th, 1936. On November 18th, 1944, T. was arrested on a charge of murder in the second degree and confined in the county jail. On November 20th, 1944, the General Foreman was informed by two of the complainant’s fellow employees as to the circumstances and reason for his absence. On December 22, 1944, T. was arraigned and released on bond. On December 27th, 1944, he reported for work and was rehired at the same job and wage rate which he had previously held. Some time later, however, he learned that during his detention in jail, Management has terminated his employment as a voluntary quit and that he had been rehired as a new employee without seniority. He thereupon filed the instant grievance, claiming that in cancelling his seniority Management had misinterpreted and misapplied Paragraph 64(c) of the National Agreement and asking that his seniority be restored. * On May 11th, 1945, the charge against Employee T. was reduced to manslaughter, and he entered a plea of guilty to that charge. On May 28th, 1945, he was placed on three years’ probation and was required to pay $100.00 costs. Paragraph 64(c) of the National Agreement provides that an employee’s seniority shall be broken "...if the employee is absent for three working days without properly notifying the Management, unless a satisfactory reason is given." Management admits that within three days of T.’s arrest it was notified as to the reason for his absence. It contends, however, that the reason given was not "satisfactory" and that it was therefore justified in breaking T.’s seniority and in terminating his employment as a voluntary quit. The Union contends, on the other hand, that a "satisfactory reason" is required by Paragraph 64(c) only for a failure to give Management proper notice of a contemplated absence. Since T., through his friends, gave such notice, the breaking of his seniority was improper. In taking this position the Union relies in part on the following language of the Umpire in Decision B-16. "Under Part(c) of Paragraph 64, an employee’s seniority is broken if he is absent for three working days without properly notifying the Management. An exception to the requirement just stated is provided by the same clause when it states ‘unless a satisfactory reason is given’. Under this paragraph, an employee who is absent for three working days or more assures retention of his seniority by notifying Management on the third day of absence. The required ‘proper notification’ clearly includes a statement of the reason for the absence and its likely duration. Both factors are important to Management in the conduct of the business. In the absence o proper notification as outlined, an employee’s seniority is nevertheless not broken if he later advances a ‘satisfactory reason’ to explain his failure to give such notice. This is the clear meaning of the clause as it is written and it is not proper to extend the coverage of that clause." The present Umpire agrees with this construction. The general rule established by Paragraph 64(c) is that an employee’s seniority is broken if he is absent for three working days without properly notifying the Management. Even if nothing whatever was said in the Agreement about the giving of "a satisfactory reason", proper notification would prevent the breaking of seniority. The inclusion of an exception which prevents the breaking of seniority, under certain circumstances, even when notification has not been given, can hardly be construed as furnishing grounds for the breaking of seniority when notification has been given. Management argued at the hearing that it was unreasonable to expect it to retain an employee indefinitely on its payrolls on the basis of his mere notification and regardless of the length of his absence or of the reason for it. Can an employee call up the Employment Office, Management asks, and by saying "I’ll be off for a month, getting drunk," tie Management’s hands and force his retention on the payroll? The answer is obviously no. That negative answer, however, is based upon the fact that Management’s disciplinary powers in cases of that sort do not depend upon the absence of notice but depend squarely upon the existence or non-existence of reasonable cause for absence. This is not a holding that such an employee could not be penalized or discharged. But it is a holding that since T. had properly notified Management of his absence, his seniority could not be broken under Paragraph 64(c).
Decision: Employe T.’s seniority shall be restored and his employment record shall be altered accordingly. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE October 22, 1945. |