|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-146 August 18, 1947
Rights of a Committeeman Under Paragraph 21(c) and the Local Seniority Agreement
GRIEVANCE: Saginaw Steering Gear No. 2 -- Case E-43 "I charge Supt. A. with violation of Local Seniority Agreement, Par. III, Part C. by transferring me out of my dept. while people with less seniority are retained. I ask to be retained in my department. (added at meeting of 1-15-47) Request for back pay for the difference in wages."
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 276 and General Motors Corporation—Saginaw Steering Gear No. 2 -- Case E-43
W., the complainant, is an Alternate Committeeman on the "C" shift at Saginaw Steering Gear, Plant 2. His district includes, among others, Departments 40 and 70. Prior to December 13, 1946, he was working in Department 40 as a drill press operator at the rate of $1.365 an hour. On that date there was a reduction in force in Department 40. W. was transferred out of the department to a job as a "copper plater" in Department 70 at the rate of $1.28 an hour. Four employees, junior to W. in seniority, were retained in Department 40 on jobs which paid more than W. had been receiving as a drill press operator. Paragraph 3, Sub-Section 1 of Part C of the local seniority agreement provides that:
W. claims that under this language he should have been retained in Department 40 until the four junior employees had been moved out. This claim cannot be upheld. It is, in essence, a claim that W. should have been promoted in order to avoid being laid off out of line of seniority. Promotions, however, are governed by Paragraph 63(a) of the National Agreement and are controlled by seniority only when the factors of "merit, ability and capacity" are equal. Far from showing W. to be the equal of the four junior employees on the Bullard, Potter and Johnson and New Britain Automatic Chucking Machine operations to which they were assigned, the record throws great doubt on W.’s ability to perform those operations at all. In case of conflict between the National Agreement and a local seniority agreement, the National Agreement governs. It must be held, accordingly, that W. had no contractual right to displace by promotion the four employees on the "C" shift in Department 40 who were junior to him in seniority. On the "A" and "B" shifts, however, there appear to have been a number of jobs in Department 40 which W. could do and to which he could have been transferred without a reduction in rate. Employees junior to W. in seniority were also retained on those jobs. Was not this a violation of his rights under the local seniority agreement? Were W. not an Alternate Committeeman, the violation would be clear. As an Alternate Committeeman, however, he had to be retained on a job in his district, and W.’s district did not include the "A" or "B" shift. Management, therefore, felt that his case was governed by Paragraph 21(c) of the National Agreement which reads:
It appears, thus, that in this case W.’s rights as an Alternate Committeeman were in direct conflict with his rights as an ordinary seniority employee. He had the choice of either sacrificing his status as a Committeeman and retaining a job in Department 40 on the "A" or "B" shift at no reduction in rate, or of insisting on his right as a Committeeman to remain in his district (the "C" shift) and accepting a demotion. He could not, however, do both, for no jobs in Department 40 on the "C" shift were available that he could do, and Paragraph 63 (a) barred his promotion to jobs in that department that he could not do. It has not even been suggested that W. was willing to abandon his rights as an Alternate Committeeman. Under the circumstances, W.’s rights were governed by Paragraph 21(c) and, under that Paragraph, Management’s action was entirely proper.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE August 18, 1947. |