|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. D-59 October 22, 1946
Alleged Violation Of Paragraph 24
GRIEVANCE: Detroit Transmission—Case D-27 "I charge Mr. C. with personal prejudice and union discrimination. My foreman was notified by W.E. that I would be a couple of hours late. It met with the approval of my Foreman. I was given a violation ticket after I came into work. I request that my record be cleared and personal prejudice and discrimination be stopped."
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 735 and General Motors Corporation Detroit Transmission—Case D-27
This case calls into question the justice of a reprimand given to Shop Committeeman F. for absenting himself from work at the start of his shift on October 24th, 1945, without proper arrangements for his absence having been made with the Plant Management pursuant to Paragraph 24 of the National Agreement. Paragraph 24 states that:
On the morning in question, shortly before the start of the shift, Committeeman F. had been requested by the Shop Committee Chairman to get in the Union’s sound truck and speak to the employees concerning the NLRB strike vote to be conducted that afternoon at the plant. F. agreed to do so and asked Executive Board Member E. to tell his Foreman that he would be about two hours late. E. gave this message to the Foreman, who replied "O.K.". The Union claims that E. not only notified the Foreman of F.’s intended absence but also asked him if it would be all right. The Foreman denies this, stating that he was not asked to approve F.’s absence but was merely informed of it. In any case, it is clear that the Foreman raised no objection to F.’s absence either when he was first notified of it, or later on when F. finished his broadcast and came to work. F.’s reprimand was issued at the insistence of the Personnel Director. The Union contends that in view of the apparent approval given to F.’s absence by his Foreman, the issuance of the reprimand was an act of "personal prejudice and Union discrimination". The Personnel Director denies such motivation pointing out that F. was absent not for personal reasons, which the Foreman had authority to approve, but for Union business which, under Paragraph 24, required prior arrangements between the Union and Management. At the written request of the Local Union President, F. had already been granted permission to leave his work later in the day and act as a challenger in the NLRB election. That fact in itself, Management states, is sufficient answer to the charges of prejudice and discrimination. The reprimand was issued not because of any desire on the part of Management to prevent F. from broadcasting from the sound truck, but because he had failed to comply with the Agreement by arranging for his absence in advance. The Umpire agrees that there is no evidence of prejudice or discrimination in this case and that the reprimand was properly issued. It is true, as the Union argues, that under the first sentence of Paragraph 24, Shop Committeemen have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations with respect to entering and leaving the plant as are other employees. At this plant the Foreman may excuse the lateness or absence of an employee for personal reasons. Had Committeeman F. had "personal reasons" for his lateness, therefore, the absence of any objection by the Foreman, in the view of the Umpire, would have rendered the justice of any penalty issued by higher Management highly questionable. In this instance, however, F. was late because of Union business—a matter over which the Foreman had no control. It was apparently well understood that the absence from the plant of Shop Committee members required prior arrangement with Management. Both before and after the issuance of this reprimand, requests for such absences had frequently been made by the Local Union President or the Shop Committee Chairman and had as frequently been granted. Such arrangements had in fact been made for F.’s absence later on this very day. It was because F. violated this arrangement and took additional time off for Union business at the beginning of the shift that he was reprimanded. The reprimand was justified and is upheld.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE October 22, 1946. |