|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. D-14 December 4, 1945
Alleged Violation Of Paragraph 63
GRIEVANCE: GMC Truck & Coach—Case D-13 "I request a Group Leader classification in line with my seniority. Claiming I have the merit, ability and capacity to fill such a position."
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 594 and General Motors Corporation GMC Truck and Coach Division—Case D-13
On June 11th, 1945, Management promoted Employee C., seniority date June 5, 1941, from his job as relief man on the boxing line in Department 1030 to a position as group leader on the same line. In this grievance, Employee O., who was also a relief man and whose seniority date is June 7, 1928, claims that he is at least the equal of Employee C. in ability, merit and capacity and that in view of his greater seniority he should have received the promotion. The Union asks that the job be declared vacant and that Management be directed to fill it in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 63 of the National Agreement, giving due consideration to the qualifications of the complainant. Because of the cancellation of war contracts, the group leader job was discontinued on November 5, 1945, and Employee C. was demoted in line with his seniority to the assembler classification. The case has, therefore, in many respects become moot. In view of the possibility that new leader jobs may be created in the future for which the two will be considered, however, certain comments seem appropriate. The Union’s principal contention was that O. was denied promotion solely because of his advanced age. O. had more experience as a relief man than C. His efficiency ratings have been consistently either good or excellent. Since as a relief man O. performed more actual physical labor than he would as a group leader, his physical stamina was clearly adequate for the job. Since he was the equal or superior of C. in experience and knowledge, and since his efficiency ratings were good, the Union argues, he should have been given the job. Any other holding, it urges, would allow Management to discriminate between candidates for promotion upon the basis of their age alone, and age is not necessarily an indication of an employee’s ability, merit or capacity. With the Union’s general thesis that age, taken by itself, has no necessary relevance to the question of ability, merit and capacity, the Umpire is in full accord. He does not agree, however, that age was the only or even the principal factor which distinguished the two candidates from each other. The qualities which seem to have been most important in filling this group leader job were those of initiative, alertness and flexibility. Management was looking for a "self starter" as opposed to an employee who merely did well what he was told to do. In view of the varied nature of the boxing operation in this department, frequent changes in speed and the constant necessity of shifting employees from one operation to another, the importance of these qualities in the man immediately in charge of the line is self evident. The evidence leaves little question but that in these qualities C. was definitely the superior of the two. The Umpire finds that the Union has not established that O. was the equal of C. in the ability, merit and capacity necessary for this group leader job. The grievance must accordingly be dismissed.
Decision The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE December 4, 1945. |