|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-137 July 14, 1947
Violation Of Paragraph 63(a).
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet Gear & Axle Division—Case E-26 "I charge Management with a violation of N. A. Par. 63 on a promotion of employee J. F., to machine repair leader, while I have more seniority, ability, experience, and know how for this job. I applied for this job under N. A. Par. 63. I demand I be given this job, and the difference in money from the date of violation."
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 235 and General Motors Corporation—Chevrolet Gear & Axle Division—Case E-26
As a result of a request to General Foreman S. for the transfer of one of his machine repairmen into another department, a vacancy occurred in the position of Machine Repair Leader in the Punch Press Repair group. General Foreman S., when advised that the man he surrendered should be capable of acting as a Leader, offered the requesting department the choice of taking Employee J.F., or taking his Existing Leader on condition that J.F. would be promoted to the resulting vacancy. The second alternative was put into effect, and J.F., seniority date May 7, 1928, was promoted to Leader on April 29, 1946. Complainant T.B., seniority date December 28, 1925, protests the promotion as a violation of Paragraph 63 (a) of the National Agreement. The Union claims that T.B. is a more versatile machine repairman than J.F., having worked on a variety of machines; that Management once offered a similar promotion to T.B. as proof that his ability was recognized; that Foreman F., the immediate superior of both J.F. and T.B. stated that in his opinion, T.B. was the better man; that the General Foreman was under personal obligation to J.F. and that the promotion was based on favoritism. The position of the Union is that T.B. should have been given the job. No relief is requested on behalf of any other employee. Management says that J.F. is "head and shoulders" above any employee considered for promotion; that J.F. had previous experience as an hourly rated Foreman from May to September, 1934, and under the local seniority agreement is entitled to preference; and that charges of favoritism to J.F. on the part of his Foreman are without basis and are wholly denied. Management furthermore says that even if J.F. is not entitled to the promotion, the complainant is not capable of doing the work and would not be considered for the job of Machine Repair Leader. In the opinion of the Umpire, there is grave doubt that J.F.’s promotion resulted from a proper application of Paragraph 63 (a). J.F. may be the "live wire" and "hustler" that Management claims. He may be energetic, capable and experienced. Nevertheless, there is little or no convincing evidence that Supervision gave consideration to the abilities of any machine repairmen other than J.F. And Management’s assertion that J.F. stood "head and shoulders" above all others is seriously weakened, in the Umpire’s judgment, by the General Foreman’s testimony that he had been involved in financial transactions with J.F. that implied a longstanding and close personal relationship between them. There is no question but that J.F.’s promotion was part of a "package deal" with other members of supervision involving the transfer of the prior Leader. The Corporation’s denial of the existence of any basis for the charge of favoritism is not an objective evaluation of the facts candidly admitted by the General Foreman and previously known by higher supervision. The Umpire is not suggesting that there was anything intrinsically wrong in the General Foreman’s relationship to J.F. It is conceivable that in spite of that relationship he was able to divorce himself from considerations of friendship and view J.F.’s abilities objectively. But clearly, when such a relationship exists between a member of supervision and top Management itself should review his recommendations with exceptional care and bend every effort to see that the rights of other employees under Paragraph 63 (a) are protected. The evidence does not indicate that such a special effort to preserve the interests of all possible candidates against the danger of deliberate or unconscious favoritism was made by Management in this case. If there were evidence that any of the other employees in the Punch Press Repair Group had abilities comparable to those of J.F. and seniority superior to his, the Umpire would unhesitatingly declare the Leader’s job vacant and order Management to fill it in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 63 (a). The difficulty is that this grievance is brought only on behalf of T.B. and the Union has not shown that he approached J.F. in the abilities requisite for this promotion. Not only does T.B. seem to be inferior to J.F. in the qualities of leadership, his judgment as a machine repairman has frequently been at variance with Management’s policies. Management deems it highly necessary to get presses back in operation quickly in the event of breakdowns. It desires when possible to make emergency repairs and arrange for subsequent overhauling at a time when production will not be interrupted. Whether by design or misunderstanding, T.B. has often failed to follow this policy. On his own statement he prefers to do at once what he believes ultimately will have to be done. In several recent instances T.B.’s recommendations as to the repairs necessary on certain presses were overruled because they did not give regard to Management’s immediate productive needs. As the Leader’s job in question is limited to the Press Repair Group, these considerations bear directly on his comparative fitness for the post. The Umpire notes, finally, that the Union’s assertions that T.B. was once offered a position as Leader and that J.F. used to work as his assistant, were both denied by T.B. himself. With all due regard for T.B.’s undoubted mechanical skill and his knowledge of Punch Presses, the fact remains that on the evidence here presented the Umpire cannot find that he was J.F.’s equal in the qualities needed in a Punch Press Repair Leader. Whether or not J.F.’s promotion violated the rights of any other employees then, it infringed no rights which T.B. held under the National Agreement. And as this grievance is brought only in T.B.’s behalf, it must be dismissed.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE July 14, 1947. |