|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-110 May 21, 1947
Interpretation of Paragraph 102: A "New Job"
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet-Tonawanda—Case E-64 "I charge Management with violation of Par. 102-102A. I claim E.L. electric annealer and hardner is a new job and should be negotiated as per contract. I ask that retroactive provision of the contract be applied as of today."
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 774 and General Motors Corporation—Chevrolet—Tonawanda—Case E-64
The Umpire finds from the evidence in this case that the annealing and hardening of Fly Wheel Ring Gears in a Salem Electric Company Flux Resistance Heating Unit is not a "new job" within the meaning of Paragraph 102 of the National Agreement, but is properly covered by the "Heat Treat Furnace Operator—Loader and/or Unloader" classification. It is true that this Salem Heating Unit is a new machine of a type which had not heretofore been used in the plant for the heat treating of ring gears. It should by now be understood, however, that Management does not necessarily create a "new job" every time it installs a new type of machine in its plant. As has been pointed out in numerous past decisions of the Umpire, a "new job" under Paragraph 102 is one which is not covered by any existing classification in the wage agreement. If a disputed operation is found by the parties (or, if they disagree, by the Umpire) to be included in the scope of an existing classification, it is not a "new job" and Paragraph 102 does not apply. The local Shop Committee has apparently been misled in this case by the presence of Paragraph 102 of the words "When new jobs are placed in production and cannot be properly placed in existing classifications by mutual agreement..." (emphasis supplied). It seems to assume from this language that the mere fact of disagreement over the classification of an operation is enough to make it a "new job" and to require Management to "set up a new classification and rate covering the job in question and... designate it as temporary". It should be apparent, however, that if the parties have already agreed on the classification of an operation (i.e., when they first negotiated their wage agreement and defined, either by specific language or by established practice, the scope of its classifications), further agreement is unnecessary. The question of whether an operation can "be properly placed in existing classifications by mutual agreement" only arises when it is found that the job is not already so covered—that it is, in other words, a "new job"—and that mutual agreement extending the scope of an existing classification to include the operation is necessary, if the creation of a new classification is to be avoided. One can only decide whether a "new job" has been created, then, after one has first examined the scope of the existing classifications, as revealed in the agreement and the parties’ established practice. It may be discovered that the relevant classifications apply by their terms only to specifically designated machines or operations (as in the case of the "Exception" classification considered in Decision E-109 from this same plant). In that case the operation of a new type of machine would obviously constitute a "new job". It may be discovered that though the relevant classifications are of the "general" type, their scope has been so limited in practice as to exclude the new operation. In that case also, the operation would be held a "new job". But it may be found that a classification exists in the wage agreement which has in practice been applied to a wide variety of machines and operations, all of which had a somewhat similar function and all of which required essentially the same type of skill and experience. In such a case, it might well be that the new machine was covered by the classification and was not a "new job". Such is the instant case. The "Heat Treat Furnace Operator—Loader and/or Unloader" classification has for years been applied to the loading, unloading and operation of every type of heat treating equipment in the plant. During the war-time manufacture of aircraft engines, it was applied to at least eight different types of heat treat furnaces. At least one of these, the Holcraft Rotary Hardening Furnace, was installed sometime after the wage agreement was signed. It was an entirely new type of furnace and was used on a new product. Nevertheless its operators were placed in the "Heat Treat Furnace Operator—Loader and/or Unloader" classification without objection from the Union and without any suggestion that because it was a new type of machine its operation was necessarily a "new job". When the plant reconverted to commercial production, the classification was applied with the Union’s apparent consent to several additional types of heat treat equipment. One such type, the "Toco" Electric Hardening Furnace, appears to operate on the same principle as the Salem unit, i.e., instead of carrying the parts through a heated chamber or furnace, it heats them by the direct application of electric current. So far as the Umpire could observe, the operation of the Salem unit subjects an employee to no greater heat or concentration of smoke and fumes than the other types of equipment. It is clearly no more difficult to operate. In his opinion it falls within the scope of the "Heat Treat Furnace Operator—Loader and/or Unloader" classification as established by the parties’ long practice and is not a "new job." It follows that the refusal of Management to establish a new temporary classification and rate for the operation of the Salem unit and negotiate a permanent rate was not a violation of Paragraph 102.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE May 21, 1947. |