|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-45 January 6, 1946
Claimed Violation of Paragraph 63 (b).
GRIEVANCE: Buick Motor Division—Flint—Case E-48 "Request I be placed on air compressor job in Plant No. 12 as it is a better job and I have made application for this job in accordance with Paragraph 63 of the National Agreement and I have enough service for the job."
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 599 and General Motors Corporation—Buick Motor Division—Flint—Case E-48
In this grievance, Employee S., who works in the classification "Power House-Electric Air Compressor Operator" on the relief shift in Factory 69, claims that Management violated Paragraph 63 (b) of the National Agreement by refusing to assign him to the operation of an electric air compressor in Factory 12 on the day shift. He asks that he now be given that assignment. The compressor in Factory 12 had been shut down for several months because of plant reconstruction. Prior to the shutdown, its day shift operator, Employee E., had been informed that though, during the period of construction, he would be assigned to an air compressor in Factory 69, when the Factory 12 compressor resumed operations, he would be reassigned to it (provided that such reassignment was not prevented by the operation of the local shift preference agreement). In accordance with this understanding, E. was reassigned to his former post in Factory 12 on April 9, 1946. One week previously, however, Employee S. whose seniority is greater than that of E., had applied for the position. Management’s refusal to honor this application and give him preference over E. gave rise to the present grievance. Management contends that since E. was not requesting a change in his wage classification, he was not asking a "transfer" and Paragraph 63 (b) is without application. Had S. been working on the day shift when he made his application for assignment to Factory 12, Management would be correct. In their local agreements and in their usage before the Umpire, however, the parties have always referred to the movement of an employee from one shift to another as a "transfer" whether or not it involved a change in wage classification. The Umpire will follow the same construction. It is to be noted, however, that the National Agreement provides in Paragraph 75 that "Provisions pertaining to shift preference may be negotiated locally as a part of local written seniority agreements subject to the approval of the Corporation and the International Union." Clearly, where such a local shift preference agreement has been negotiated, its provisions must control the time and manner in which the rights conferred by Paragraph 63 (b) may be asserted. Only if no shift preference agreement has been negotiated locally would 63 (b), by itself, be controlling. As a local shift preference agreement is in effect at the Buick Motor Division it governed all requests for a transfer from shift to shift within the same wage classification. There is no evidence that Management violated its shift preference agreement by refusing S.’s application for the day shift assignment in Factory 12. And it should be clear from the principles laid down in Umpire Decision E-44 that apart from the matter of the requested change in shifts, S.’s application amounted only to a request for a change in job assignment which Management was not obligated to honor under Paragraph 63 (b).
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward January 13, 1947. UMPIRE |