|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. D-40 June 17, 1946
Appeal From A Discharge For Absenteeism
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet Parts—Bay City—Case D-6 "I was unjustly fired because I notified the personnel office that I would not be in to work. I request my job back and back pay for all time lost from 6-25-45."
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 362 and General Motors Corporation Chevrolet Parts—Bay City—Case D-6
On June 25th, 1945, Employee W. was discharged for chronic absenteeism. He now claims that his discharge was unjust and asks reinstatement with back pay. From the first of January, 1945, to the time of his discharge, W. was absent 17 Saturdays out of a possible 25. On two of those Saturdays he had a completely satisfactory excuse. For the remaining 15 he appears to have had no excuse whatsoever. On May 28th, following an investigation of his absence the previous Saturday, he was given a one-week layoff. On his return he told other employees that he was not worried by disciplinary penalties since in any case he was going to quit after July 1st, and only desired to work that long in order to earn his vacation pay check. In view of these statements, Management determined that further corrective discipline would be ineffective. When, therefore, he was absent again on June 9th, he was given a warning that if he was absent one more day without satisfactory reason he would be discharged. On Saturday, June 23rd, W. was again absent. After determining that he had no excuse for such absence Management discharged him. The Union’s sole contention in protesting W.’s discharge is that as W. had worked for twelve years without a penalty prior to his one-week disciplinary layoff, his discharge violated the accepted principles of corrective discipline. Instead, the Union urges, he should have received a long term layoff. Under ordinary circumstances the Umpire would agree with this contention. Corrective discipline, however, cannot be arbitrary or automatic in its application. In other cases, the Union has itself protested against applying the principle in a hard and fast manner without regard to special circumstances. As long as a real possibility of improving an employee’s conduct through increasingly severe penalties still exists, discharge is improper. But when an employee by his conduct and statements makes it evident that he is indifferent to further penalties, the reason for the application of the principle disappears and Management is left with no recourse but that of discharge. In the instant case it is very clear that further efforts at corrective discipline would have been useless. In view of W.’s inexcusably bad record of absenteeism, his discharge was proper and is upheld. The grievance is dismissed.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE June 17, 1946. |