|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. D-6 August 30, 1945
Request Of Journeymen Machine Repair Machinists To Be Classified As "Leaders"
GRIEVANCE: Hyatt Bearings—Case D-1 "Charge violation of Paragraph 112. Demand management proceed to negotiate a Leader Classification for Machine Repair Machinist classification."
Umpire’s Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 511 and General Motors Corporation—Hyatt Bearings Division—Case D-1
The sole issue presented by this grievance is whether or not since August, 1944, Employees R., B., M. and P., now classified as Machine Repair Machinists, have been functioning as Leaders, and whether or not Management, in recognition of that fact, should negotiate a new "Leader" classification and rate for them in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 112. The parties do not differ widely over the basic facts in this grievance, but are completely at odds as to their interpretation. Prior to August, 1944, machine overhaul at this plant was performed for the most part by upgraders and trainees under the immediate direction of a Foreman. It is clear from the evidence that Foreman F., who was in charge of machine overhaul on the day shift, actively directed the work of these upgraders and trainees, assigned them to specific jobs, gave them instruction and checked their work upon its completion. Though no detailed evidence was presented concerning the activities of Foreman E. on the second shift, he seems to have functioned in essentially the same manner as Foreman F. It appears that Management became dissatisfied with the results which were being obtained in the Machine Overhaul Department. In August, 1944, therefore, it combined the day and the night shift into one, removed the two Foremen who had previously supervised the work on these shifts, and placed the department in the charge of Foreman R. Foreman R. decided that the work of the department would be improved if he secured three journeymen Machine Repair Machinists and assigned them to work with the upgraders and trainees on the three main types of machines being overhauled. Employees R., B., and M. were therefore taken from the repair work which they had been doing on the floor of the plant and assigned to overhaul work on the 81 Heald Grinders, the 72 Heald Grinders, and the Cincinnati Grinders, respectively. The Union alleges that when the men were brought into the Overhaul Department they were told by Foreman R. that they were to be in charge of the work on the respective types of machines assigned to them, that they should assign work to the upgraders and trainees, give them instruction when needed, check their work as it progressed, and give it their final o.k. The Union claims further that they have ever since performed these functions, that each has had anywhere from two to nine upgraders and trainees working not only with them but under their immediate direction, and that they gave these men their assignments, answered their questions, inspected their work and gave it final approval when they saw that it had been satisfactorily completed. Several of the upgraders and trainees in question appeared at the hearing and testified to the same effect, indicating that their relation to the journeyman with whom they worked was substantially the same as that which they previously had had to Foreman F. before the department was reorganized. For example, Employee L., a machine repair trainee assigned to 81 Heald Grinders, testified that for a month or two after Foreman R. took charge of the department he used to go to him for his assignments, but that early in the Fall, the Foreman told him that he should check with Employee R. and that if his work "was o.k. with R. it is o.k. with me". Ever since, Employee L. has taken his job assignments from Employee R., going to the Foreman only if Employee R. was out of the department. Employee P., a machine repair trainee assigned to 72 Heald Grinders, gave similar testimony as to his relation to Employee B. Foreman R. told him, he said, that when he ran out of work he should go to B. to see if B. had anything for him to do, that B. would o.k. his work, and that he should follow B.’s instructions. This was the situation, P. said, whenever he was working on 72 Healds. Only when he was occasionally assigned to other types of machines did Foreman R. give him instructions. The evidence given as to the functioning of Employee M. on the Cincinnati Grinders was to the same effect. In addition to the three journeymen discussed above, the Union claimed that Employee P., a Machine Repair Machinist assigned to overhauling Cone Automatics, was also functioning as a Leader, Employee K., a machine repair upgrader, had been working on the Cone Automatics for some time prior to the departmental reorganization. When Foreman F. was in charge, he said, F. assigned him to his work, gave him instruction and checked his results. When F. left, however, K. was told to work with P. and has ever since taken P.’s instructions and had P. inspect and approve his work. To quote K.’s direct language at the hearing "P. is my boss just the same as F. was before." Management denies that any of the four journeymen involved were ever given any supervisory authority over the upgraders and trainees with whom they worked. The journeymen, it says, are excellent workmen with long experience, great skill, and thorough knowledge of the machines on which they have specialized. It is altogether natural, Management says, for the other employees to come to these old hands for advice on the problems they encounter, and it is part of a journeyman’s normal job to inspect and check thoroughly all work done on the machine he is repairing before giving that machine his final o.k. It is understandable, moreover, that the upgraders and trainees should not come to the Foreman for daily work assignments. They are men with some years’ experience and know from past practice the manner in which one job follows another on a particular machine and that when one machine is finished they are normally expected to go to the next. None of the facts developed, Management believes, indicate that journeymen are acting as Leaders or are doing anything beyond the normal scope of their job. In Management’s opinion, therefore, the grievance should be regarded as merely a request for more money, justified by no real change in the employees’ functions or responsibilities, and on that basis denied. The line which separates a Leader from a mere skilled employee is often difficult to draw. As Management points out, it is normal for employees of lesser experience and skill to seek the advice and instruction of the old hands that may be working with them. It is expected, moreover, that highly skilled employees will check the work which they are doing and that such a final check will involve inspection of the work which other employees may have done on the same job. On the evidence in this case, however, the Umpire believes that Management has allowed the boundary line to be crossed. These four journeymen did far more than give advice. They gave instruction, direction, and in a real sense, supervision. Though job assignments were not frequently necessary, when assignments were made they made them. The checking and inspection which they did of others’ work seems not to have been merely incidental to the giving of their final "o.k." to the machine overhauled, but rather to have been a special responsibility which the departmental Foreman himself had previously exercised. It is true that when the classification of these employees was first informally discussed in the Fall of 1944, a Management representative informed the Union that they were not to be Leaders. It is likewise true, however, that they assumed their special responsibilities at the express direction of the departmental Foreman and continued them with his knowledge and tacit consent. And in matters of classification it is the assigned function and not Management’s opinion with respect to classification titles which the Umpire must consider as decisive. As the Umpire said in Decision C-292:
Since no "Leader" classification for Machine Repair Machinists exists in the local wage agreement it must be held that the four journeymen, R., B., M. and P., have been working at a new job within the meaning of Paragraph 112. Management must therefore be directed to establish a temporary classification and rate covering the job, to negotiate a permanent classification and rate, and to classify and pay the four journeymen upon the basis of these temporary and permanent classifications and rates as long as it requires them to perform a Leader’s functions.
Decision:
Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE August 30, 1945. |