|
|
|
OFFICE OF THE UMPIRE No. E-165 SEPTEMBER 26, 1947
Protest Of A Discharge
GRIEVANCE: Pontiac Motor—Case E-125 "Protests unjust discharge. Requests reinstatement on job. Requests back pay for time lost." Umpire’s Decision:
In the Matter of: United Automobile Workers of America—C.I.O.—Local 653 and General Motors Corporation—Pontiac Motor Division—Case E-125 On November 27, 1946, Employee S., a temporary employee with more than thirty days of employment, was discharged. Though the discharge slip stated as the reason for her discharge that she was an "Inefficient worker—Temporary worker", K., her Foreman, later stated in reply to a grievance that she had been discharged for "Refusal to obey orders of Foreman" and "Refusal or failure to do job assignment" in violation of Shop Rules 13 and 14 respectively. One of the complainant’s assignments was to transfer ring and stem pinion gears from the feeder line in Department 565 to the "high line" in Department 562 from which they were normally expected to be removed by "Gear Matchers". Frequent difficulties had apparently arisen, however, because the Gear Matchers could, at a given time, use only the particular sizes required by the assemblies they were fabricating. If other size gears remained on the "high line" they would be carried into the washers where they ran a risk of being damaged. It was, therefore, often necessary for the Matchers to leave their work, remove these gears and pinions and pile them on benches or tables or in stock tubs. Sometime prior to S.’s discharge, therefore, the Matchers had asked Foreman K. to have S. hang on the "high line" only gears of the ratios they were using and place the others in tubs near her work station. Though the evidence is in conflict as to K.’s consequent instructions, it is clear that from that time on S. followed the practice of asking the Matchers what ratio gears they were using, hanging those on the high line and placing others in tubs. This was evidently done with the Foreman’s knowledge and apparently with his tacit consent. It is also clear that throughout this period, the Foreman was disturbed because insufficient gears were being removed from the feeder line and it was frequently becoming clogged. Foreman K. told S. on several occasions that she was leaving the feeder line too heavily loaded at the end of the shift, but the difficulties still continued. Finally, at about 2:00 p.m. on the afternoon of her discharge, he warned her that if she didn’t perform her duties better he would have to take drastic action. He did not, however, tell S. that she should abandon her practice of hanging on the high line only those gears and pinions which the Matchers were using. The Umpire finds from the evidence that thereafter S. continued to remove gears from the feeder line and place those which the Matchers did not need in work tubs near her bench. She continued to do this until her tubs were full. He finds further that when the tubs were filled, she was left with no place to put the remaining gears except the high line, and that— rightly or wrongly—she believed that she was not supposed to hang them on that line unless the Matchers wanted them. She made one or two unsuccessful efforts to have male employees bring her additional tubs and then—since Foreman K. was not around—decided that she had no alternative but to leave the gears on the feeder line. When Foreman K. returned at about 3:22 p.m. and found the feeder line clogged, he discharged her. Upon the facts in evidence, the Umpire cannot uphold the discharge. The root cause of her difficulty lay in confused instructions, if not, indeed, in confused departmental administration. Either she was supposed to follow the Matchers’ directions as to the type of gears they wanted on the high line, or she was not. If she was—she should not be penalized for doing so or for Supervision’s failure to provide her with sufficient tubs to take care of the overflow. If she was not—she should have been told that specifically and not allowed to continue that practice for weeks on end. None of the three charges that at different times have been lodged against S. has been sustained. If there was inefficiency here, the evidence indicates that it lay elsewhere than with S. And, in the Umpire’s opinion, neither the foreman’s instructions to S. nor her "job assignment" were sufficiently clear to justify a penalty for her failure to carry them out.
Decision: The discharge of S. shall be rescinded and she shall be reinstated with full back pay. Back pay shall be computed in accordance with Paragraph 50 of the National Agreement. Signed, Ralph T. Seward UMPIRE September 26, 1947. |