|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-49 JANUARY 14 1947
Claimed Violation Of Paragraph 63 (b).
GRIEVANCE: Pontiac Motor Division—Case E-11 "Policy. Violation of Paragraph No. 63 of National Agreement. Not advancing employees according to seniority."
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 653 and General Motors Corporation—Pontiac Motor—Case E-11 During the Spring of 1946 a need arose for a second shift crane operator in Department 732 of the Pontiac Motor Division. Desiring to fill this vacancy by an experienced crane operator, supervision sent a requisition to the Employment Department requesting that such an individual be hired. When it developed that an experienced operator could not readily be found, supervision decided that it would be necessary to train one of the existing employees for the job. The foreman, therefore, asked a number of employees whether or not they wanted to try out for the crane operator position, speaking to them in the order of their seniority. Employee W., a power truck driver, was the oldest employee in seniority who expressed a desire for the post. W. was therefore tried out on the crane for an hour or two at a time over a period of approximately two weeks. On April 11, 1946, however, an experienced crane operator was hired by the Employment Department and placed on the job. In this grievance Employee W. claims that by failing to give him preference for the post over a newly hired employee Management violated Paragraph 63(b) of the National Agreement. Transfer to the crane operator classification would have involved an increase in W.’s rate. The Umpire has held in Decision E-44, however, that the preference over new hires granted to seniority employees by Paragraph 63(b) extends to transfers to higher rated vacancies as well as to transfers to openings which would involve no change in rate. The only question in this grievance, therefore, is whether W. was "capable of doing the job" within the meaning of Paragraph 63(b). This question obviously requires a comparison of his abilities as a crane operator with those of the newly hired employee. In the Umpire’s opinion, it would have been a clear violation of W.’s rights under Paragraph 63(b) had Management hired an inexperienced employee off the street in preference to W. If anyone has to be trained for a job, Paragraph 63(b) gives employees already on the payroll clear preference for such training. On the other hand, the Paragraph does not require Management to train one of its existing employees for an opening if an experienced operator can be hired who can perform the work satisfactorily without training. The Umpire finds from the evidence that W. would have required further training for the crane operator’s position before he was able to operate the crane satisfactorily without constant supervision and frequent instruction. The operator who was hired had worked as a crane operator is an eastern shipyard for over six months and in addition had operated a crane for another company for an unspecified period. He was apparently able to take over the operation of this crane with no training other than the brief "break in" needed to familiarize him with the work of the department. The Umpire finds under these circumstances that Management did not violate Paragraph 63(b) by refusing W. the job.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed.
Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE January 14, 1947. |