OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE

No. E-145

August 18, 1947

Classification Question

GRIEVANCE:

Delco-Remy Division—Case E-28

"Violation of Pars. No. 97, 100, 102, 102(a), and 102(b) of the National Agreement, also local agreements dated May 16, 1942 and October 23, 1942, when Management arbitrarily installed semi-skilled classification in Dept. No. 23, Plant 1. The Union is asking this classification be eliminated and employees now in this classification be classified in Buffing—Hand—Skilled. Also be paid difference in rate of these classifications retroactive to 6-18-46, the date the instant grievance was filed."

Umpire’s Decision:

1. The elimination of automatic buffing lathes from Department 23, Plant 1, rendered the classifications "Buffing—Automatic" and "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" inapplicable to the work here in dispute.

2. The Union’s claim that this work is covered by the classification "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" is without merit and is dismissed.

3. Management’s action in reclassifying this work in the classification "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" without the Union’s agreement is held to have been in violation of the supplemental wage agreements of May 16, and October 23, 1942.

4. Since neither the classification "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" nor the classification "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" can properly be applied in Department 23 without the mutual agreement of the parties, the work now performed in that Department by employees in those classifications shall be given the status of a "new job" under Paragraph 102 of the National Agreement, and the parties shall proceed accordingly. (Entire decision should be read)

 

In the Matter of:

United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 662

and

General Motors Corporation—Delco-Remy Division—Case E-28

In this grievance the Union claims that the application in Department 23, Plant 1, at Delco-Remy, of the classification "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" is a violation of the local wage agreement and the wage provisions of the National Agreement. In the opinion of the Union, the work in this department which is now classified as "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" should properly be classified as "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" at a twelve cent increase in rate. The Union asks that the work be reclassified with back pay to the date on which the grievance was filed.

It appears that prior to the war, the local wage agreement at Delco-Remy contained three classifications which were applied to the buffing and polishing work in this department:

Classification Present Rate

Buffing—Automatic $1.245

Buffing—Automatic—

Men who can do Hand $1.325

Buffing—Hand—Skilled $1.395

Employees who were assigned full time to comparatively unskilled work on automatic buffing lathes were placed in the "Buffing—Automatic" classification. The most intricate and skilled work, which could not be done on automatic machines, was classified as "Buffing—Hand—Skilled." Employees who spent part of their time on skilled hand buffing and part on the automatic lathes were placed in the intermediate classification "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand."

It further appears that on May 16 and October 23, 1942, two supplemental agreements were negotiated establishing additional wage classifications to cover new war jobs in Plants 10 and 2. Among those thus established was the classification "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" (present rate $1.275) whose application is at issue in this case.

For about two years, Management confined its application of this classification to Plants 10 and 2. In 1944, however, an operation performed by an employee in Department 23, Plant 1, was classified as "Polishing—Semi-Skilled." In 1945 and 1946 other jobs in this department were so classified. Operations designated "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" now constitute a large percentage of the department’s work.

During this same period the use of automatic buffing lathes was being discontinued in Department 23. By the end of 1945 these machines had been entirely eliminated and the "Buffing—Automatic" classification was no longer applicable. It should be noted, however that the classification "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" is still applied in the department.

Reduced to its essentials, the claim of the Union in this case is as follows:

1. As a result of the elimination of the automatic buffing lathes from Department 23, Plant 1, the work formerly performed on those lathes can no longer properly be classified in the "Buffing—Automatic" or the "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" classification.

2. When this work is performed by hand it properly belongs in the "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" classification. Indeed, employees in this classification as well as those in the intermediate "Men who can do Hand" classification have regularly been assigned to it.

3. The "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification was negotiated with specific reference to operations being performed in Plants 10 and 2 and with the clear understanding—expressed in the preamble to the May 16 and October 23, 1942 agreements—that it would not be extended to cover jobs in other plants without negotiation and agreement.

4. The application of the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification in Department 23, Plant 1, is thus a violation of these supplemental agreements. Management’s failure to place the work in the "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" classification when the automatic lathes were discontinued amounts to a violation of the original local wage agreement. The employees in the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification in Department 23 together with those in "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" classification should therefore be reclassified to the "Buffing—Hand-Skilled" classification with back pay to the date the grievance was filed.

 

Management replies:

1. The "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" classification is intended primarily to cover intricate and highly skilled buffing and polishing on special pieces which are expensive, are not run on a production basis, and might easily be spoiled by inexpert handling. Employees in this classification have been used on other jobs only because there was not enough of this special work to occupy their full time.

2. The disappearance of the automatic polishing lathes has indeed rendered the "Buffing—Automatic" classification inapplicable in Department 23. But this does not mean that the remaining "Hand" work is "skilled" work or deserves to be placed in the "Hand—Skilled" classification. Rather, it belongs in a classification negotiated to cover repetitive production, buffing and polishing which, though hand work, requires neither great accuracy nor exceptional skill. "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" is precisely such a classification.

3. Nothing in the preamble or the body of the supplemental agreements of May 16 and October 23, 1942, limited the application of the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification to Plants 10 and 2. On the contrary, the preamble expressly states that the new classifications established by those agreements were to apply plant-wide.

4. This grievance is untimely because it was filed almost two years after the first introduction of the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification into Department 23.

In an effort to throw some light upon these opposing contentions, the Umpire requested the parties to supply him with information setting forth the routing history of all the operations performed by employees in the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification in Department 23 between January 1^st and March 31^st of this year. That information has been supplied. Though the parties are in considerable disagreement in detail, they are in substantial accord on the broad facts. From his analysis of this information the Umpire has reached the following conclusion:

1. All but a negligible portion of the work in dispute was being performed by Department 23, Plant 1, by employees in the "Buffing—Automatic," "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" and "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" classifications in 1941 when the original local wage agreement took effect or during the year immediately preceding or immediately following that date. The work—as then being performed—was undoubtedly covered by one or the other of these three classifications.

2. Whatever else may have been the effect of the supplemental wage agreements of May 16 and October 23, 1942, they were not intended to and did not reclassify work already classified in the local wage agreement.

3. If the use of automatic lathes had not been discontinued, therefore, this disputed work would have retained its original classification and any attempt to reclassify it as "Polishing—Semi-Skilled," without negotiation, would have been a violation of the local wage agreement.

4. The discontinuance of the automatic lathes was a change in process which justified the reclassification of the work theretofore covered by the "Buffing—Automatic" classification. As to such work the only question raised by the parties is whether it properly should have been reclassified as "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" or as "Polishing—Semi-Skilled." The Umpire, however, sees the further possibility that it might have belonged in the classification "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" provided that this classification could still be applied after all automatic lathe work was discontinued. And there is the still further possibility that it belonged in none of these three classifications but should have been considered a "new job."

5. The great complicating factor in this case is the continued existence and peculiar nature of the "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" classification. As explained at the outset, this classification was established in the original local wage agreement to cover employees who worked part time on automatic lathes and part time on hand work. Defining its scope would be difficult, in any case, because it is more a classification of men than of operations. It is rendered all the more difficult by the extent to which Management has disregarded classification lines in its job assignments in this department. Employees in the "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" classification have customarily been assigned to work identical with the hand work performed by employees in the "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" classification. Some of the latter, it appears, have occasionally been assigned to the work on special pieces usually reserved for the "Hand -- Skilled" employees. Employees in the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification and those remaining in the "Men who can do Hand" classification seem to be used almost interchangeably on the same type of work. And this same work was being performed by employees in the "Men who can do Hand" classification in 1941 and 1942 when the wage agreement and the supplements were negotiated—some of it on automatic lathes, but considerable of it by hand.

6. Stark on the face of this case, then, is the question: What is the present coverage of the classification "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" now that the automatic lathes have been discontinued? Is the classification still applicable, even though a basic part of the work it covered has been eliminated? If it is not, why has Management continued it? If it is, what distinguishes it from "Polishing—Semi-Skilled"?

With these conclusions and final questions in mind, let us return to the parties’ contentions as set forth above. The Union is requesting that all of the work performed by employees in the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" and the "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" classifications be reclassified as "Buffing—Hand—Skilled." This request must be denied. Nothing in the evidence indicates that the "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" classification has general applicability to all buffing and polishing work in Department 23 which is not performed on automatic lathes. By its very title, the classification covers skilled work of the class originally required to put an accurate and high luster finish on the horns and other parts manufactured before the war and now needed for the finishing of special and expensive pieces not run on a production basis. None of the work which has been assigned to the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification and little of that performed by the "Men who can do Hand" is of this character. Rather, it is, for the most part, comparatively simple repetitive production buffing. It is not skilled work and though men in the "Hand—Skilled" classification have frequently been assigned to it, they have been so assigned only because there was not sufficient skilled work to take up their full time. It is clear from the evidence, in other words, that when men in the "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" classification performed the operations now in dispute they have been working outside of their classification. Unskilled work does not become skilled work merely because a skilled man is sometimes assigned to it as a measure of efficient plant operation.

Neither does the Umpire agree with the Union that the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification is limited in its application to Plants 10 and 2 unless extended beyond those plants by agreement. The preamble to the agreements of May 16 and October 23, 1942, clearly states that:

"As a matter of adding the new classifications which have been worked out as a result of this negotiation to the general wage and classification sheet, it is understood that these classifications apply plant-wide and any new jobs which have not been previously negotiated may be placed in these new classifications by negotiation." (Emphasis supplied.)

It is clear from this language that the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification has from the first had plant-wide application. It could properly be applied anywhere at Delco-Remy to work of the sort it had been negotiated to cover. Union agreement would be necessary only for its extension to work which it had not been originally designed to include— in other words to "new jobs which had not previously been negotiated."

The crucial and inescapable fact in this case, however, is that the disposition which should be made of the unskilled or semi-skilled work in Department 23 after the elimination of the automatic lathes has never been negotiated, either when the parties established the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification or at any other time. Much of this work was being performed by hand in 1942 by employees in the "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" classification. Can Management contend that the effect of the supplemental agreement was to reclassify the work? If so, why was the "Men who can do Hand" classification retained? Was the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification, then, intended to apply only to work previously covered by the "Buffing—Automatic" classification? Apparently not, for it is clear from the routing information submitted to the Umpire that many of the operations now classified as "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" were performed in 1942 by hand by employees in the "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" classification and are still performed in that classification today. The evidence in this record, in other words, simply will not support a holding that the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification was originally negotiated to cover the work to which it has been applied in Department 23. And without such a holding—its extension to that work without Union agreement cannot be upheld.

What disposition, then, can be made of this case? In the view of the Umpire, the only realistic solution which is compatible with the parties’ contractual rights is to hold that Management must do now what it originally should have done when the automatic lathes were discontinued, i. e., designate the disputed work as a "new job," establish a temporary classification and rate for it, and negotiate with the Union a permanent classification and rate. In the judgment of the Umpire, this procedure should be followed with respect not only to the work performed in the "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" classification but also to that performed in the "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" classification. The elimination of the automatic lathes so changed the character of the work in that classification that it should no longer have been applied. It is more over a striking example of the confusion that can be caused when individuals are classified rather than jobs. The opportunity to reduce this confusion, to establish classifications and rates that bear some relevance to the work an employee customarily performs, to create a situation in which—even though men may still be required, on occasion, to work outside of their classifications—it will at least be possible to tell when they are doing so, should be welcomed by both sides.

This grievance was undoubtedly untimely. The confusion which has attended the administration of wage classifications in Department 23, however, provides some excuse for the failure of the Union earlier to assess its rights. The Union’s tardiness, therefore, is not held to deprive this grievance of status before the Umpire or to indicate any earlier acceptance by the Union of Managements position.

Decisions:

1. The elimination of automatic buffing lathes from Department 23, Plant 1, rendered the classifications "Buffing—Automatic" and "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" inapplicable to the work here in dispute.

2. The Union’s claim that this work is covered by the classification "Buffing—Hand—Skilled" is without merit and is dismissed.

3. Management’s action in reclassifying this work in the classification "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" without the Union’s agreement is held to have been in violation of the supplemental wage agreements of May 16, and October 23, 1942.

4. Since neither the classification "Polishing—Semi-Skilled" nor the classification "Buffing—Automatic—Men who can do Hand" can properly be applied in Department 23 without the mutual agreement of the parties, the work now performed in that Department by employees in those classifications shall be given the status of a "new job" under Paragraph 102 of the National Agreement, and the parties shall proceed accordingly.

Signed, Ralph T. Seward

UMPIRE

August 18, 1947.

UMPIRE DECISION INDEX