|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-3 SEPTEMBER 6, 1946
Alleged Violation Of Paragraph 21
GRIEVANCE Allison Division—Case E-2 "I claim violation of Paragraph 21D of National contract. Inasmuch as I am a District Com. and was not called back to work as is specified therein, therefore, I ask pay for time lost." Amended 4-18-46 by adding: "Violation of Paragraph 21 of National Agreement, also violation of Strike Settlement Agreement."
Umpire’s Decision: Management shall offer Committeewoman S. make-up work equivalent to the amount of working time she lost through an unavoidable error in failing to notify her to report for work in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 49 of the National Agreement. (Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 933 and General Motors Corporation Allison Division—Case E-2 On March 26th, 1946, shortly after the termination of the General Motors’ strike, Management sent to the office of the Western Union Telegraph Company, a list of employees and their home addresses with instructions that each was to receive a telegram directing him to report for work at his regular shift time on March 27th. Included on the list of employees was the name of Employee S., a Committeewoman. For some reason the telegram to S. was not delivered. As a result, Committeewoman S. was not notified to report for work until April 1st, 1946, when another Union Committeeman inquired into the reason for her absence and, with Management’s permission, notified her to report for work immediately. In this grievance, Committeewoman S. claims that Management violated Paragraph 21 by failing to notify her to come to work when ten or more employees were working in her district, and asks back pay for the four working days she lost. Under Paragraph 21 the responsibility for "offering work" to Union Committeemen for representation purposes rests clearly with Management. Though Management has a right to determine the method of notification which it will use, i.e., whether by telegram, registered mail, postcard, telephone, or other means—it has a corresponding obligation to see that its methods are successful. In the instant case though the error was Western Union’s, Management must necessarily take the responsibility for the failure of the method of notification which it chose. The Umpire finds, however, that Management was not negligent or careless in the matter and that its assumption that S. had been notified was a reasonable one. As in the instances of failure of delivery dealt with in Umpire Decisions A-22 and B-61, this was clearly a case of an unavoidable error for which the Committeewoman should receive compensation in the form of make-up work under Paragraph 49 rather than through an award of back pay.
Decision: Management shall offer Committeewoman S. makeup work equivalent to the amount of working time she lost through an unavoidable error in failing to notify her to report for work in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 49 of the National Agreement. Signed, Ralph T. Seward, UMPIRE September 6, 1946. |