|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-111 May 22, 1947
Classification Question
GRIEVANCE: Aeroproducts-Dayton—Case E-6 "Violation of Wage Agreement. Small Parts and Blade Inspectors being paid $1.24 per hour on jobs which should be $1.375 per hour. Was laid off at V-J Day at $1.19 per hour, called back and paid $1.24 instead of $1.19 plus 18 1/2c for same kind of work."
Umpire’s Decision: It is found from the evidence that the work of the complainant on washing machine inspection is not a "new job" within the meaning of Paragraph 102 of the National Agreement and that it properly falls within the "Small Parts Inspection" classification already existing in the wage agreement. Management is directed to reclassify the complainant and pay him in accordance with this decision. (Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 947 and General Motors Corporation Aeroproducts—Dayton—Case E-6
The Umpire finds from the evidence presented in this case and from his own investigation in the plant that the work of Complainant S. in inspecting washing machine parts does not constitute a "new job" within the meaning of Paragraph 102 of the National Agreement, that his work is properly covered by the "Small Parts Inspection" classification in the local wage agreement, and that Management was in error in establishing the temporary "Mechanical Inspector" classification to cover this work. It is true that when the local wage agreement was negotiated on November 24th, 1943, washing machine parts were not being manufactured by the Aeroproducts Division, and the "Small Parts Inspection" classification was applied only to the inspection of propeller parts. It is likewise true, that the work of the "Small Parts Inspectors" on propellers has always involved a great deal of precision inspection performed with precision measuring instruments rather than with gauges. It seems, however, that during the war when propellers were being produced in greater volume, many of the "Small Parts Inspectors" worked almost exclusively with gauges. It is apparent, moreover, that much of the inspection of washing machine parts done by the complainant and others in the temporary "Mechanical Inspector" classification requires the use of precision measuring instruments. Though working to close tolerances is more typical of propeller inspection than of washing machine inspection, the tolerances which must be observed on certain washing machine parts are higher than on a number of the propeller parts. In the Umpire’s opinion, then, the inspection operations on washing machine parts which he observed, including those for which the complainant is responsible, fall within the scope of the "Small Parts Inspector" classification as defined by the prior practice of the parties. In applying this classification to propeller operations, Management apparently made no distinction between operations which required the use of delicate measuring instruments and those which involved only the use of gauges; or between those that involved close tolerance and those in which the tolerances were comparatively liberal. It cannot introduce such distinctions now merely because a different product is involved. The Umpire would like to emphasize, indeed, that in applying wage classifications, the nature and function of the product is important only insofar as it affects the nature of the work. It is the job that is classified; not the product. Insofar as the work performed on propellers differs in its essential job elements from the work performed on washing machines, new classifications for the latter work may clearly be justified. Insofar, however, as washing machine operations are essentially similar in their job elements to propeller operations already classified in the wage agreement, the establishment of new classifications is not justified. Since, under this principle, the inspection operations performed by the complainant and his fellows on washing machine parts did not constitute a "new job", Management’s action in placing those operations in the temporary "Mechanical Inspector" classification must be held to have violated the local wage agreement. Management will be directed to place the complainant in the "Small Parts Inspection" classification and pay him the rate for such work. No request for back pay was contained in the original grievance or added by amendment, and none, therefore, may be awarded. It should be understood, finally, that this decision is limited in its application to inspection operations on washing machines. The proper classification of other washing machine operations was not placed at issue and is not decided.
Decision: It is found from the evidence that the work of the complainant on washing machine inspection is not a "new job" within the meaning of Paragraph 102 of the National Agreement and that it properly falls within the "Small Parts Inspection" classification already existing in the wage agreement. Management is directed to reclassify the complainant and pay him in accordance with this decision. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE May 22, 1947. |