|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-141 JULY 28, 1947
Claim Of Improper Transfers
GRIEVANCE Chevrolet-Flint—Case E-25 "Charge violation of Paragraph 63 of National Agreement. Management in crossing non-interchangeable occupational group lines in confliction with Umpire rulings on Paragraph 63, violated such agreement. Request these jobs filled by men from outside non-interchangeable occupational groups be declared vacant and I and other seniority men in Dept. 444 be given consideration under the National Agreement for these openings in Tool Room non-interchangeable occupational group."
Umpire’s Decision: 1. For the reasons stated in the opinion, the claim that the transfer of B. and H. violated Paragraphs 63 (a) and (b) of the National Agreement, and the local seniority agreement is dismissed. 2. The remaining contentions of the Union, based on the right of "Group 2" employees to be preferred over Upgraders for "Group 1" jobs are found to be supported by inadequate evidence and are referred back to the Third Step for further investigation and clarification. (Entire decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 659 and General Motors Corporation—Chevrolet-Flint—Case E-25 This case places at issue the rights of the parties with respect to the transfer of employees between certain "non-productive, non-interchangeable occupational groups" established by the local seniority agreement at Chevrolet-Flint. Tool Room Group 1 in Department 444 includes the classifications "Tool, Gage and Fixture Repair—Class A, B, and C" and "Toolmakers—Class A, B, and C." Tool Room Group 2, also in Department 444, covers a number of Tool Room machine classifications such as "Jig Borers—Vertical; Boring Mill Operators—Class A and B," "Grinder Operators—Class A and B," etc. Established in a separate non-productive, non-interchangeable group (listed in the seniority agreement under the heading "Other Groups") are the classifications in Department 422 entitled "Adjusters—Jig, Fixture and Tool-Class A, B, and C." Reconversion to commercial production substantially reduced the work required of employees in the "Adjuster" classifications and correspondingly increased the work required of "Toolmakers" and "Tool, Gage and Fixture Repairmen." Accordingly, on June 7th, 1946, two "Adjusters," Employees H. and B., were transferred to these Group 1 classifications. Employee H., who had been receiving $1.585 per hour, was transferred to the classification "Tool, Gage and Fixture Repairmen—Class C" at the same rate. Employee B., who had been receiving $1.635 per hour, was transferred to the "Toolmaker—Class B" classification, also at the same rate. The Union questions the propriety of these transfers on a number of grounds. It suggests, in the first place, that the transfers violated the promotional rights of employees in Group 2 classifications under Paragraph 63 (a) of the National Agreement. It claims, in the second place, that the transfers violated the right of Group 2 employees, who had applied for and were capable of performing Group 1 jobs, to be given preference for openings in Group 1 classifications under Paragraph 63 (b) of the National Agreement. It contends, in the third place, that "Adjusters" are not entitled to the status of journeymen in "Tool Room" classifications, and that the Corporation had agreed in writing that if upgrading were necessary to bench work in the Tool Room, employees in machine classifications in the Tool Room would be given the first opportunity to fill the vacancies in accordance with the Upgrading Agreement. Finally, latent in its briefs though not stressed at the hearing, there seems to be the often raised and as often dismissed contention that Management has no right to transfer employees between non-interchangeable occupational groups. With regard to this latter point, the Umpire must again point out that Management’s right to transfer employees from one occupational seniority group to another is explicitly recognized in Paragraph 62 of the National Agreement. In the exercise of that right it must, of course, comply with the rules established in Paragraph 63 and in the Upgrading Section of the Agreement where those rules apply. It must also, of course, adhere to any special restrictions established in the local seniority agreement. Otherwise, however, Management’s discretion in the matter is unlimited by the Agreement. After seven years of Umpire Decisions, this point should by now be understood. So far as Paragraph 63 is concerned, the evidence reveals no violation. As the transfers of B. and H. involved no change in rate, Section (a) of that Paragraph was inapplicable. As to Section (b), the Union has not shown that any employees in Department 444 had applied for the vacancies into which B. and H. were transferred. Between April and the end of June, 1946, it is true, the Group 2 employees in Department 444 were canvassed to discover whether or not they desired to be transferred to Group 1 vacancies. The only three employees mentioned by the Union as having had their rights infringed by the transfer of B. and H. were canvassed during this period. All of them refused a transfer when first questioned; one of them because it would have involved a change in shift, another because it would have involved a reduction rather than an increase in his rate and the third for reasons unexplained. All three, moreover, have since been transferred to Group 1 jobs paying higher rates than those in which B. and H. were placed. Clearly, then, there was no violation of their rights, and the Union has mentioned no other employees as having grounds for complaint. The record likewise contains no showing of a violation of the local seniority agreement. No section of that agreement limits Management’s right to transfer employees between the occupational seniority groups here involved. The only section of the agreement which bears on such transfers is a provision that employees transferred into non-productive, non-interchangeable occupational groups shall not establish their seniority in such groups for a period of one year. This regulation, far from prohibiting transfers between occupational seniority groups, such as that of B. and H., assumes that such transfers may legitimately be made. On any other assumption, the provision would be meaningless. There remains, then, only the Union’s claim that these transfers violated the Upgrading Section of the National Agreement and a commitment made by the Corporation in February, 1943, that: "In the event it becomes necessary to upgrade to bench jobs, jig building, etc., employees now in machine classifications within the tool room will be given the opportunity to fill these vacancies, filling the vacancies left by such employees in accordance with the Upgrading Agreement. In other words, employees now classified as machine hands will be given the first opportunity to fill the vacancies at the bench instead of upgrading new employees directly from productive operations to these jobs." In this connection, the Union claims that employees in the "Adjusters—Jig, Fixture and Tool" classifications are not journeymen toolmakers or repairmen; that their transfer to "Group 1" jobs could therefore only be accomplished by upgrading; and that under the Corporation’s commitment, above quoted, the employees in the "Group 2" machine classifications should have been given an opportunity to fill the Group 1 vacancies before either B. or H. were transferred. The evidence presented in this case, however, does not establish that "Adjusters" may not be considered "journeymen" within the meaning of Paragraph 143 of the National Agreement. On the one hand, it is clear that the "Adjuster" classification is not listed as a Tool Room activity in the local seniority agreement. On the other hand, the Union itself, in 1943, requested and obtained Management’s agreement to apply the Upgrading provisions of the National Agreement in filling "Adjuster" vacancies; that is, as Management said in its letter of July 30, 1943, "if journeymen are not available the Upgrading Section of the National Contract... will be applied." Apparently, then, both parties recognize that "Adjusters" may be considered "journeymen" in contrast to nonjourneymen production employees. Apparently the Union argues, however, that they are not to be considered as journeymen in the Tool Room classifications. Management, on the contrary, contends that though it once argued that certain former job setters, newly added to the "Adjuster" classification, should not be considered journeymen for the purpose of transfer to other Tool Room classifications, it made no such agreement with respect to all employees in the classification, and alleged that it has on several occasions moved journeymen "Adjusters" into Tool Room activities without protest from the Union. In the view of the Umpire, the Union is perfectly sound in its contention that under the Corporation’s commitment of February, 1943, employees in Group 2 have a right to be preferred for Group 1 vacancies over upgraders. The materiality of that contention, however, depends upon a showing that B. and H. were not entitled to journeymen status in the "Toolmaker" and "Tool, Gage and Fixture Repair" classifications, and that a situation existed which called for upgrading under Paragraph 127. No such showing has been made. That these employees were working as "Adjusters" prior to their transfer, is not in itself decisive either way. And the record is barren of evidence as to their individual experience and as to the method by which they acquired their skill which alone could permit of a decision on this point. The Umpire has therefore decided to refer the "Upgrader" phase of this case back to the parties without a decision at this time. In the judgment of the Umpire, further discussion and clarification of the issue at the Third Step should produce an agreement in principle as to the rights of Group 2 journeymen to Group 1 jobs under the Corporation’s commitment of February, 1943. Investigation, moreover, should reveal whether or not sound grounds exist for challenging the right of B. and H. to journeymen status in Department 444. If, however, these remaining issues cannot be disposed of by mutual agreement, the matter may be reappealed to the Umpire.
Decision: 1. For reasons stated in the opinion, the claim that the transfer of B. and H. violated Paragraphs 63 (a) and (b) of the National Agreement, and the local seniority agreement is dismissed. 2. The remaining contentions of the Union, based on the right of "Group 2" employees to be preferred over Upgraders for "Group 1" jobs are found to be supported by inadequate evidence and are referred back to the Third Step for further investigation and clarification. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE July 28, 1947. |