|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. D-19 April 29, 1946
Appeal From An Alleged Violation Of A Local Wage Agreement
GRIEVANCE: Delco-Remy—Case D-4 "The Bargaining Committee of Local 662 charges Management with violation of Paragraphs 112, 112a and 112b of the April 16, 1945 Agreement when the molding operation on the new Jet Propulsion job in Plant 7 was arbitrarily placed in the Coremaker classification without mutual agreement."
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 662 and General Motors Corporation—Delco-Remy Division—Case D-4
The Union charges in this grievance that the Management of the Delco-Remy Division violated Paragraphs 112, 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the National Agreement by placing the manufacture of forms for the casting of bearing supports for jet propulsion aircraft engines in the "Core Maker" classification at a rate of $1.16 per hour instead of in the "Molder" classification at a rate of $1.18 per hour. The forms in question are used to shape the outside of the bearing support. The Union claims that by definition and by common foundry usage such an "outside" form is a "mold" and the job of making one is that of a "Molder." Similarly, the form which is placed inside the "mold" to shape the inside of the piece to be cast is a "core", and only the making of such "inside" forms can be called "Core Maker’s" work. To classify the present operation as "core making", therefore, is contrary to the customary meaning of the term and a clear violation of the local wage agreement. Management does not deny that elsewhere in industry the terms "core" and "mold" are frequently used to designate inside and outside forms, respectively. It contends, however, that it is not common usage but its own established plant practice that should govern the interpretation of this wage agreement. For many years at Delco-Remy, both before and after the wage agreement was negotiated, "Core Makers" were distinguished from "Molders" solely by the type of sand used in making the form. If "Dry Sand" was used, the form was a "core", and if "Green Sand" was used, the form was a "mold", and these terms applied regardless of the function of the form in the casting process. Thus on certain gear and crank cases, the "core", made of dry sand, forms a considerable portion of the outside surface. In the Crank Housing job, a green sand "mold" forms the inside and a dry sand "core" forms the outside. In the casting of a certain cover green sand is used to make both the inside and outside forms, and both are referred to and classified as "molds". It is because of the somewhat greater care and skill required in the handling of "green" as compared to "dry" sand that the "Molder’s" rate is two cents above the "Core Maker’s" rate. In view of this undisputed evidence regarding the established practice at Delco-Remy, the Umpire must dismiss the instant grievance. Where local practice is in doubt, common industrial usage is often helpful in the interpretation of a local wage agreement. The issue, however, is never "What is proper dictionary usage?" or "How are these terms used elsewhere?", but always "What did this Management and this local Union mean by the terms when they placed them in their agreement?". In this case the answer to that question is clear beyond dispute. At Delco-Remy, the term "core" has always been applied to a form made of dry sand and the term "mold" has always been applied to a form made of green sand As the form in question was of "dry sand" it was properly classified as a "core" and paid for at the "Core Maker’s" rate. The Union argued at the hearing, nevertheless, that as the bearing support was a new product, placed in production only a few weeks before the grievance was filed, the work of making the forms should have been considered a "new job" within the meaning of Paragraph 112. Since it could not be placed in an existing classification by mutual agreement, the Union urged, Management should have established a temporary rate for it and negotiated a permanent rate with the Bargaining Committee. After almost six years of Umpire proceedings the fallacy in this argument should be apparent. Work of the type involved in this case has been covered by the "Core Maker" classification for years. That a product is new does not necessarily mean that the task of making it is a "new job". Tool Rooms are not reclassified every time new tools are manufactured; nor has it in the past been found necessary to negotiate new "Molder" and "Core Maker" rates every time model changes required the casting of new parts.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE April 29, 1946. |