|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-153 August 29, 1947
Disciplinary Case
GRIEVANCE: Chevrolet—Saginaw Service Manufacturing—Case E-11 "I protest being released as a voluntary quit as I notified my Foreman that I was going to be off from November 13, 1946, to November 25, 1946 to go deer hunting. I demand to be reinstated with full seniority and pay for all lost time."
Umpire’s Decision: For the reasons stated in the opinion the disciplinary layoff imposed upon the complainant shall be reduced to one week and he shall receive back pay for the remainder of the time lost. (Entire decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 522 and General Motors Corporation—Chevrolet—Saginaw Service Manufacturing—Case E-11
At issue in this grievance is the justice of a thirty-day disciplinary layoff imposed upon Employee H. for absenting himself from work without permission during the deer hunting season in the Fall of 1946. Management had originally released the complainant as a voluntary quit under the provisions of Paragraph 64 ©, on the theory that he had been "absent for three working days without properly notifying the Management..." At the Third Step Appeal Meeting on this case, however, Management agreed to restore the complainant’s seniority and to reinstate him as of December 25th, 1946; the period from November 25th (the date on which the complainant claims he intended to return to work) and December 24th, 1946, to be considered a disciplinary layoff for his unexcused absence. The question of whether the complainant’s seniority could properly have been broken, therefore, is not before the Umpire. The only question is whether the disciplinary layoff was warranted. Management has acted throughout this case upon the assumption that H. absented himself not only without permission but also without notifying his Foreman that he was going hunting. The evidence presented at the hearing does not support this assumption. Though it is clear from the Foreman’s testimony that he never granted H. permission to go, it is also clear that he knew at least two weeks before the start of the deer hunting season that H. intended to leave, that both he and H. understood that an employee who was being broken in on H.’s job would take over completely during H.’s absence, and that the Foreman at no time made it clear to H. that Management "meant business" in refusing him permission or that he might expect to be penalized or to lose his seniority if he left. Technically, H. had no right to absent himself from work during the deer hunting season without permission. But in matters of discipline, justice must be meted out with an eye to realities as well as to technicalities. The Umpire is convinced from the evidence that when H. left to go deer hunting, he had every reason to believe from his Foreman’s actions that Supervision knew he intended to go and was prepared to "wink" at his violation. Under the circumstances, the Umpire cannot uphold a penalty layoff as severe as that here in question. In view of H.’s admitted violation of plant rules, a penalty layoff of one week will be upheld. He shall receive back pay for the remainder of the time lost.
Decision: For the reasons stated in the opinion the disciplinary layoff imposed upon the complainant shall be reduced to one week and he shall receive back pay for the remainder of the time lost. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE August 29, 1947. |