|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. D-66 February 3, 1947
Claim Of Improper Promotion
GRIEVANCE: Brown-Lipe-Chapin—Case D-66 "Charge Management with violation of Par. 63 of National Agreement, S.Z., seniority 10-18-38 has been advanced to Utility Man over me. My seniority date is 11-12-36 and my ability, capacity and merit is equal to those of S.Z. I demand that this job be vacated and I be advanced to it. Demand all back pay."
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 854 and General Motors Corporation Brown-Lipe-Chapin—Case D-66
The Umpire finds from the evidence that the complainant, Employee H., is not equal in ability, merit and capacity to Employee Z. and that Management’s action in promoting Z. to the position of utility man on the hub cap cover polishing line in preference to H. was not a violation of Paragraph 63 of the National Agreement. It is true that Employee H. not only had greater seniority than Z., but also had had longer experience in the Polishing and Buffing Department. His work in that department, however, had been largely confined to color buffing. Z., on the other hand, had had more than a year’s experience in the operation of the automatic buffing machines which are used on hub caps and had spent considerable time working as a "dent man" in the salvaging of dented hub cap covers. In the Umpire’s opinion, there is no question that this specialized experience more than offsets the longer period of time that H. had worked in the Polishing and Buffing Department. The evidence indicates, moreover, that Z. was definitely superior to H. in the qualities of initiative and alertness and in the ability to deal with and instruct other employees. On an ordinary machine operating job these factors would not be of such great significance. For the job of utility operator their importance is self evident. H., then, though unquestionably a good and reliable workman, was by no means the equal of Z. in the special experience and abilities needed for the utility job in question. The grievance must be dismissed.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE February 3, 1947. |