Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and
Local 150 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO
tech. JX 4. Eight employees bid for the job, among them grievant, who was a
The manager of human resources made an initial determination that only one
of the eight applicants had the requisite qualifications. Grievant was rejected on the
basis of his lack of experience. The lone qualified applicant, although junior to
grievant in seniority, was not senior among the applicants, nor was grievant himself
superintendent for a job interview. Satisfied that the applicant had at least 5 years
experience and was otherwise qualified, the maintenance superintendent awarded the
2
job to him.
Grievant filed a grievance report with the Union, October 9, 1996. JX 2. In his
report, grievant stated only, "I was unfairly dealt with by being denied the PM tech
job." Grievant did not assert that he had the requisite 5 years experience. The
manager of human resources denied the grievance the day it was filed, stating, "The
grievant clearly does not have the required background necessary to be awarded the
job." JX 3.
DECISION
The Union invoked arbitration, and a hearing was held August 12, 1997, at
Company offices in Nashville, Tennessee. The parties briefed the issues, and the
record was closed September 17, 1997. After hearing, briefs, and thorough review of
DISCUSSION
to pay, and has in fact paid, increased wages. The Union, having accepted the
increased wages for years, cannot now complain about the corresponding increase in
3
would give rise to yet another grievance. In this case, upholding the grievance almost
surely would give rise to another by the successful applicant for the PM tech job, who
At the hearing, grievant took the witness stand. However, at no time during his
testimony did he testify that he had the 5 years experience required for the PM tech
job. Grievant testified only that he believed that he could do the job if given the
chance.
grievant to have no more than 1 1/2-2 years of relevant training and experience.
Although they conceded that the 5-year requirement is not inflexible, they considered
The Union relies upon Article 9-7, Article 9-10, and Section F of the
pertinent part:
If a posted job calls for any special skills, abilities or training, this will be
noted on the job posting. At least one of those signing the posting must have
the special skills, abilities or training before the job will be awarded.
4
With respect to Article 9-10, the Union asserts on page 5 of its brief:
Nowhere in this portion of the contract does it state that special skills is
defined as five years experience. This is an arbitrary assignment by the
Company and was never agreed to by the Union.
testified that the job upgrade from oiler to PM tech was discussed with the Union. No
Union official took the stand to deny that discussions took place or to assert that the
Union voiced timely objection. The job of PM tech has been filled previously without
objection from the Union. Thus, the Union at least tacitly agreed to the 1994 job
upgrade.
Even if there were no evidence that the upgrade was the subject of discussion
with the Union, Article 9-6, 9-7 and 9-10 and Section f of the Appendix, when read
together, could lead to the conclusion that the Company has the right to set the
purely arbitrary job qualification standards (and there is no such evidence in this
case), the Company's setting of qualifications well could be sustained on the basis of
on manufacturing machinery.
The Union suggests that grievant be awarded a PM tech job on a trial basis,
5
under Article 9-8. However, that provision applies to the case of an employee who
initially appears to be qualified but turns out not to be in practice. Grievant did not
None of this is to say that grievant could not do the PM tech job if given the
opportunity. It is just to say that an arbitrator's task is not to tell the Company how to
run its business. It may be that the parties could negotiate a program under which
employees with a long history of Company service are given special consideration
for advancement. However, the proper arena for such consideration is collective
6
7