Grievance Discussion Case $9$: Is Upward Bumping an Unauthorized Promotion?

BACKGROUND

A plant manufactured approximately $1,200$ different aluminum shapes. About $450$ of the shapes were anodized by attaching the aluminum shapes to a rack and then dipping the rack into an anodizing tank. Anodizing was done by teams of two rackers each. Each racker had to do a careful job of securing the aluminum to the rack. Aluminum pieces that were not racked properly could be ruined, causing significant financial loss to the company.

Local $491$ of the International Chemical Workers Union was the authorized bargaining agent for the production workers of this plant. Christine Hinds was hired by the company on September $15,1990,$ and at the time of the grievance she was working as an anodyne racker. Ray Davies was hired on July $30,1990,$ and was the grievant.

While employed by the company, Davies had been classified as a packer helper, saw helper, head sawer $($which is the same job grade as racker$),$ fork truck operator, and die cleanup, but never as a racker. On December $3,$ Davies was laid off by the company due to economic reasons. Thus, he filed a grievance claiming that the company violated the collective bargaining agreement by retaining a worker with less seniority $($namely Hinds, who was a racker$).$ At the time of the grievance filing Davies was employed as a saw helper, which was two job grades below racker.

TESTIMONY AT THE ARBITRATION HEARING

At the grievance hearing Davies testified that although he never was actually classified as a racker, he learned racking while working as a second shift forklift operator. He stated that he learned how to be a racker by filling in for $15$ or $20$ minutes at a time and also by observing rackers at other times. He further testified that he had become a "jack$-$of$-$all$-$trades" and could have satisfactorily performed the duties of a racker if paired with an experienced racker.

At the grievance hearing, the plant manager also testified regarding several points. First, had Davies been retained as a racker, he would have been paired with a regular racker. Second, Davies was a willing and cooperative worker and would be able to do any job after training. Third, in the plant manager's estimation, Davies would probably have required $30$ days' training to become as efficient as a normal racker. Fourth, four men bumped into being rackers during the layoffs$-$one of them was a rack maker who had acquired some experiencing being a racker by filling in during lunch breaks.

TESTIMONY AT THE ARBITRATION HEARING

At the grievance hearing Davies testified that although he never was actually classified as a racker, he learned racking while working as a second shift forklift operator. He stated that he learned how to be a racker by filling in for $15$ or $20$ minutes at a time and also by observing rackers at other times. He further testified that he had become a "jack$-$of$-$all$-$trades" and could have satisfactorily performed the duties of a racker if paired with an experienced racker.

At the grievance hearing, the plant manager also testified regarding several points. First, had Davies been retained as a racker, he would have been paired with a regular racker. Second, Davies was a willing and cooperative worker and would be able to do any job after training. Third, in the plant manager's estimation, Davies would probably have required $30$ days' training to become as efficient as a normal racker. Fourth, four men bumped into being rackers during the layoffs$-$one of them was a rack maker who had acquired some experience being a racker by filling in during lunch breaks.

POTENTIALLY RELEVANT CONTRACT PROVISIONS

ARTICLE IX$.$

Section $1$: Seniority shall be on a plantwide basis.

Section $2$: In all matters of promotion, demotion, transfer, job training, shift preference, layoff, and recall, the following will be the determining factors:

a$.$ Seniority.

b$.$ Ability to do the work required.

QUESTIONS

$1.$ As the labor relations manager for the company, how would you argue a case supporting your client's actions?

$2.$ Assume the role of Local $491$ chief steward. How would you support your contention that the company violated the collective bargaining agreement?

$3.$ As an arbitrator, how would you rule? Why?