|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-157 September 9, 1947
Protest Of Reprimand And Claim For Call-In Pay Based On Paragraph 24
GRIEVANCE: Diesel Equipment Division—Grand Rapids—Case E-5 "I deny the charge made in this infraction. I ask that the infraction be withdrawn." AMENDED: "Requests compliance with Paragraphs 24 and 80 of the National Agreement. Pay for three hours call-in pay is requested."
Umpire’s Decision: The grievance is dismissed. (Entire decision should be read)
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O. and General Motors Corporation—Diesel Equipment Division—Grand Rapids—Case E-5
Employee Z., the Chairman of the Shop Committee at the Grand Rapids plant of the Diesel Equipment Division, brings this grievance in protest against a reprimand which she received for refusing to work a full eight-hour shift on December 14th, 1946. She asks not only that the reprimand be expunged from her employment record, but that she should receive call-in pay for the day in question. Employee Z. was working as a grinder operator on the second shift. On Friday, December 13th, she was told by her foreman that her department was going to work on Saturday, and was asked if she would be available to perform the grinder operation. Z. replied that she would like to work but there was to be a general meeting of the Union on Saturday evening, December 14th, and that as Chairman of the Shop Committee, she might have to leave her job to attend the meeting. The foreman explained to her that the grinder operation was of critical importance to the entire work of the department and that, if she could not work the full eight-hour shift, he would have to call in someone else. Z. then went to see the Personnel Director who told her that she was free to refuse the overtime assignment if she desired, but that, if she accepted, she would have to work the full eight hour shift. After some discussion, Z. informed the Personnel Director that she would come to work and would endeavor to have someone else make her report at the Union membership meeting. The Union alleges that she qualified this statement by asserting that if events arose which required her to leave the plant, she would "exercise her rights under Paragraph 24 of the National Agreement." Management denies that any such qualification was placed on her acceptance. In any case, however, when Z. returned to her department she told her foreman that she definitely intended to work the following day. The foreman thereupon cancelled his instructions to another employee who was to have come in to take Z.’s place. On Saturday, December 14th, Z. reported for work early, asked a Shop Committeeman to make her report at the Union membership meeting, and learned for the first time that a certain matter was to be discussed at the meeting which urgently required her presence. She thereupon asked her foreman for a pass to leave the plant at 6:30 P.M. stating that she would return at 8:00. As her half-hour lunch period fell between these hours, she would thus have lost only one hour from her work. The foreman declined to issue the pass. Z. then went to the plant superintendent and repeated her offer to work until 6:30 P.M. and to return immediately after the Union meeting. The superintendent insisted that since Supervision had laid all of its plans for the department’s operation upon her previous statement that she would work the full shift, she would have to fulfill her commitment. Z. thereupon left the plant. On the following Monday, she received the reprimand which is here at issue. In the view of the Umpire, the justification of the reprimand is clear on the face of these facts. Under Paragraph 24 of the National Agreement, it is true, Z. had every right to leave the plant, provided that proper arrangements had been made with Management. The very purpose of this provision for "arrangements," however, is to give Management time to secure replacements and to discourage Shop Committeemen from postponing their requests to leave until the last minute, when replacements are not available. Management was clearly within its rights in deciding that for purposes of departmental efficiency, an employee was needed on the grinder operation for the full eight-hour shift. It was willing to make arrangements for Z. to leave the plant by calling someone in to replace her for the entire shift. Z. had the choice of either accepting these arrangements and attending the Union meeting, or of coming to work for the full eight hours. But she could not properly attempt to eat her cake and have it, too. Once she had made her choice, Management had a right under the Agreement to hold her to it. The denial of call-in pay was equally justified. Z. was not "called to work or permitted to come to work without having been properly notified that there will be no work." Work was available for her to do. Her refusal to do it was her own voluntary choice.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward, UMPIRE September 9, 1947. |