|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-160 September 10, 1947
Disciplinary Case
GRIEVANCE: Fisher Body—Lansing—Case E-38 "Protest disciplinary lay off torch solder department. I protest the most unreasonable job assignment by R.P. on April 10, 1947. The task was more than I could do and in addition crossing the line is a definite safety hazard. I did not refuse to accept assignment given me by L.P. I demand back pay for all time lost."
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—Fisher Body Division—Lansing—Case E-38
Complainant J., a relief man in the torch solder area, was given a two-day penalty layoff for refusing to obey the orders of his foreman. Upon a reduction of the number of operators on the closed body line, soldering jobs were reassigned, and in lieu of other work, Employee M. was assigned to solder both front pillar posts on each body. He refused the assignment and was sent home by his foreman who thereupon called complainant to do the same task. The foreman illustrated the method to J. and soldered several bodies on both sides at the pillar post location and then turned the work over to him. After fifteen or twenty minutes, the foreman returned and noted that J. was doing the solder job on only one front post on each body. At least three, and at most seven, bodies had gone down the line with only one side soldered. When questioned as to the reason for his failure to do the job as assigned, the complainant, according to Management, asserted that crossing the conveyor line was against all safety rules. According to the Union, the complainant was not asked the reason for his failure to follow instructions, but upon the foreman’s return was immediately told to hang up his torch and go home. The Union bases its challenge to this penalty upon the claim that J. did not refuse to do the job assigned, but was unable to do so; that no employee was able to do so; and that shortly thereafter the work was again reassigned in a different manner which did not require that one employee do both front posts. The evidence, however, clearly establishes that J., at the time of starting to work, knew that M. had refused to solder both front posts and was being disciplined for his refusal. It is further established that J. thereafter omitted to solder both posts on at least three bodies. His instructions were specific and he should have followed them out as best he could whether or not he thereby fell behind. The responsibility for keeping the line going did not rest upon the complainant, and he should not have attempted to impose his own ideas as to the way the job could best be done. Viewed in its most favorable light, J.’s conduct was still an unwarranted assumption of managerial discretion. No proper reason has been advanced for his failure to make any effort to carry out his job assignment according to his foreman’s instructions. The grievance must be dismissed.
Decision: The grievance is dismissed. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE September 10, 1947. |