Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UAW Local 62 and Jackson Innova 3-21-89
UAW Local 62 and Jackson Innova 3-21-89
UAW Local 62 and Jackson Innova 3-21-89
and
On September 15, 1988, the following notice was posted on the bulletin
See JX 1.
("CBA") provides:
The issue presented is whether, under the management rights clause, the
Company had the right unilaterally to make the changes announced in the
notice. I conclude that it did not. However, because the Union presented no
Discussion
The Company argues that the CBA does not expressly provide that the
operator (i.e., hammerman), heater, and trimmer, to two operators and one
heater, with the operators alternating on the trim press. However, the CBA
expressly refers to operators, heaters and trimmers, and past practice reveals
Arbitrator Arthur Jacobs stated both the principle and the rationale
for according deference to the parties' past practices in Coca-Cola
Bottling Co.:
A union-management contract is far more than words on
paper. It is also all the oral understandings, interpretations and
mutually acceptable habits of action which have grown up around
it over the course of time. Stable and peaceful relations between
the parties depend upon the development of a mutually satisfactory
superstructure of understanding which gives operating significance
and practicality to the purely legal wording of the written contract.
Peaceful relations depend, further, upon both parties faithfully
living up to their mutual commitments as embodied not only in the
actual contract itself but also in the modes of action which have
become an integral part of it.
Where the Company has always done a certain thing, and the
matter is so well understood and taken for granted that it may be
said that the Contract was entered into upon the assumption that
that customary action would continue to be taken, such customary
action may be an implied term.
The matter before me involves not a practice about which the CBA is
silent, but one to which it speaks. Exhibit A to the CBA, which covers the
compelling:
The daily bonus will be paid as follows:
Operator - $8.50
Heater - $7.50
Trimmer - $6.75
See JX 2, ¶8 @ 32.
The Company argues that these many references mean only that crews
may consist of operators, heaters and trimmers. The Union's position is, of
course, that inclusion of a trimmer is mandatory. At the very least, these twenty-
of Robert Fiddler, who has worked at the plant for twenty-eight years, was that,
except on the 10,000# hammer, the standard crew always has consisted of one
operator, one heater and one trimmer. The exception for the 10,000# hammer is
noted in the CBA by asterisks ("When there aren't two qualified operators").
See, for example, JX 2, ¶ 31 @ 36. Mr. Fiddler's testimony was consistent with
arguments worthy of note. First, the Company urges that it is a sad state of
beneficial. The difficulty with such an argument is that it is one of labor policy,
not contract. Arbitrators interpret and apply labor contracts; they do not decide
Next, the Company argues that the changes are beneficial for all parties.
The Company points out that the wages of an operator are higher than those of a
trimmer, so that employees have been given the opportunity to increase their
employees can earn production bonuses. The Company insists that work quality
as much during shifts and will be subjected to less stress over their lifetimes.
in making the crew changes. Indeed, the Company seems to have acted with the
best of intentions. In Local 7-591, OCAW International Union and Pennwalt
Corp, FMCS No. 88-10581 [105 LRP 55076 (Cornelius Arb 1988)], I upheld
crew changes based upon the installation of new equipment. Here, however, the
justify a change in work crews. Instead, it offers only its own sincere desire for
change, mid contract. The difficulty is that the CBA and federal labor law forbid
duly and August of 1988, without objection from the Union, so that a grievance
filed in September over the changes is untimely. It is unclear that the Union was
aware that anything was afoot earlier in the summer. Both parties agree that,
from time to time, two operators have been, and rightfully may be, assigned to a
naturally, the Union could not have been expected to divine a major change in
crew composition from the mere fact that two operators were assigned to some
crews in July and August. Moreover, the notice plainly stated that the change
was to take place in the future. The very day the change was announced
formally, the grievance was filed and therefore was timely. See JX 2 @ 4.
The Union claims that trimmers with more seniority have been displaced
by operators with less, and requests back pay for all trimmers affected. The
difficulty with this request is that the Union presented absolutely no evidence of
any particular trimmer who has been affected adversely by the crew change.
The Union offered not one name, Social Security number or clock number of a
trimmer who claims to have been displaced, and did not document a single
instance of actual displacement. Thus, the record is devoid of any evidence upon
Award
For the foregoing reasons, the grievance is sustained, but back pay is
denied for lack of evidence. The Company shall rescind its notice of September
15, 1988, and shall assign work crews as it has done in the past. The Company