|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-134 July 9, 1947
Leave Of Absence For Union Activity
GRIEVANCE: Detroit Transmission—Case E-33 "The Union charges Supt. of Personnel, H.A.C., with violation of Par. 6 and 109 of the Nat. Agreement. The Union demands an immediate leave of absence for employee F.F. and that C. be restrained from further discrimination against the Union."
Umpire’s Decision: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, Management’s action in rescinding the complainant’s "Leave of Absence for Union Activities" is held to have been in violation of Paragraph 109 of the National Agreement. (Entire Decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 735 and General Motors Corporation—Detroit Transmission—Case E-33 Employee F., the complainant in this grievance, is President of the Local Union at the Detroit Transmission Plant. On Saturday, October 26th, 1946, he told his Foreman that it would be necessary for him to take a week’s leave of absence for Union activity. On the same day he left a letter with Plant Protection for delivery to the Personnel Manager stating:
The letter was delivered Monday morning, October 28th. On Wednesday, October 30th, F. was observed at the plant entrance in a sound car which bore election posters and was heard addressing employees urging them to vote in the public elections to be held on November 5th, and naming candidates for County, State and Federal office endorsed by the Political Action Committee. On the same day Management sent F. a telegram stating:
F. reported for work and filed this grievance alleging a violation of Paragraph 109 of the National Agreement. Under Paragraph 109, a leave of absence for Union activity must be granted to "any employee elected to a permanent office in, or as a delegate to, any labor activity necessitating a leave of absence..." F. had been elected to the presidency of his local Union, a permanent office. Though at this Local, the presidency is not a full-time job, F. was clearly entitled under Paragraph 109 to go on leave of absence from time to time to take care of accumulated Union business. Local Management has recognized this. The Corporation does not question it. At issue, then, is only the question of whether F.’s electioneering on behalf of the Political Action Committee constituted "a labor activity necessitating a leave of absence" within the meaning of the Agreement. In thus framing the issue, the Umpire is disregarding Management’s contention that F. had neither properly applied for nor received a leave of absence. The procedure he followed was casual to say the least. Management is entitled to insist upon a proper advance request for such a leave. It may, if it chooses, require the filling out and filing of its regular forms. The Union does not deny this right. In a proper case, the Umpire will uphold it. It is clear from the evidence, however, that at Detroit Transmission Management had not always insisted upon such formality. It made no point of F.’s informal procedure at the time he went on leave. The defects in his procedure were admittedly not the reason for the revocation of his leave. Until F. appeared with his sound truck in front of the plant, Management acted as though, in line with its existing practice, his leave of absence had been properly applied for and properly granted. The Umpire will deal with this case upon the same assumption. Were, then, F.’s efforts on behalf of the Political Action Committee a "Union activity" for which he could properly request a leave of absence? In the Umpire’s opinion, they were. Political activities of this sort are formally stated to be one of the functions and objects of the U.A.W.-C.I.O. in Article 2, Section 4 of its Constitution. A Political Action Committee is a standing committee of each Local Union (Article 42, Section 1) and the Local President is ex officio a member thereof (Article 38, Section 1). The Corporation must be held to have knowledge of the publicly stated functions of the labor unions with which it contracts and the Umpire is in no position to review the list of such functions and hold that some are proper "Union activities" and some are not. If the Corporation desires to rule out certain types of Union activity as grounds for a leave of absence it must specify its reservations in the Agreement. It should go without saying that the Umpire is ruling upon this case in the light of the legal situation existing between the parties at the time F.’s leave of absence was rescinded. On the question of whether or not this situation has been altered by Section 304 of the recently enacted "Labor Management Relations Act" he expresses no opinion.
Decision: For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, Management’s action in rescinding the complainant’s "Leave of Absence for Union Activities" is held to have been in violation of Paragraph 109 of the National Agreement. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE July 9, 1947 |