|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-104 MAY 16, 1947
Alleged Violation Of Paragraph 63 (b) GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet-Buffalo—Case E-13 "Violation of Par. 63. A new employee, D.C.L., was hired as Toolmaker, leader, a job for which I had previously made application. Request 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 424 and General Motors Corporation Chevrolet-Buffalo—Case E-13 In the Spring of 1946, the Management of the Chevrolet-Buffalo Division purchased and installed a number of new grinders specially designed for the grinding operations involved in the manufacture of coil springs from bar stock. For the task of setting up, servicing and repairing these new machines, it hired L., a journeyman tool maker. L. had previously been employed by a company which manufactured these grinders and had had extensive experience in developing them and demonstrating their operation. While the machines were being set, and from time to time thereafter, it was necessary for L. to have other tool makers working on the machines under his general direction. Management therefore classified him as a "Tool Maker—Leader" at the rate of $1.685 an hour. The present grievance is brought by K., a tool maker with 1941 seniority. He claims that several years ago he had requested a job as "Tool Maker—Leader", that if he had known that Management intended to create a new "Leader" job he would have applied for it, and that Management’s action in filling the position by a new hire was in violation of his own right to be transferred to the position under Paragraph 63 (b). It is apparent from the evidence, however, that whereas L. was thoroughly familiar with the set-up and operation of the new grinders at the time of his hire, K. would have required considerable training before he was able to do the work successfully. In the Umpire’s opinion, then, this case is governed by his holding in Decision E-49. In that case he said: "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." It should be clearly understood that the present decision is based entirely upon the Umpire’s findings with regard to the relative experience of the two men with the operation of these special grinders. Management’s suggestion that K.’s claim should in any case be barred because he failed to apply for the position before it was filled is completely without merit. Neither K. nor any of the other Tool Makers knew, or had any means of knowing, that the new "Leader" job was to be created. The benefits of Paragraph 63 (b) cannot be limited to such General Motors employees as possess the psychic power of clairvoyance. If Management is to "cooperate in every practical way with employees who desire transfers to new positions or vacancies in their department", it cannot keep the existence of such vacancies to itself, fill them with new hires, and then defend its action upon the ground that no seniority employees applied for the job.
Decision The grievance is dismissed.
Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE May 16, 1947 |