The dispute arose between Boise White Paper and Steelworkers Local 159 and involved interpretation of the parties' cba. The agreement had what the arbitrator described as a strong management-rights clause providing:
Section 3.1 The Company has the right to assign work to employees, irrespective of any past
practices or previous agreements which purported to limit or reserve the types of work to be assigned to
employees in any way. Further, nothing contained in this Agreement including, but not limited to, the
Recognition Article shall limit in any way the Company’s right to assign work to employees covered by
this Agreement or to other employees not cover by this Agreement.
The Company and Union were parties to a separate Memorandum of Understanding which also addressed the assignment of work and was designed to enhance efficient operation of the facility. It was the relationship between these two documents that formed the basis for the Union's claim. Specifically the Union challenged Company's temporary assignment of bargaining unit employees to jobs below their attained position on the seniority ladder.
The Progression Ladder which had previously been in place at the facility engendered what the arbitrator referred to as a "not my job" refrain from unit employees. The MOA was designed to address that perception and enhance the efficiency of a struggling operation. The Union claimed, however, that the MOA did not authorize the Company to temporarily assign employees downward, and claimed that such an assignment violated employees' seniority rights.
Arbitrator Beens rejected these claims, concluding:
The Union argues that the giving the Employer the right to assign downward nullifies the seniority provisions of the CBA. I disagree. Union members continue to accrue seniority during their temporary assignments and are only assigned to positions for which they are qualified, again as required by the CBA. The Union presented no evidence that [Grievant's], or any other Local 159 member’s, seniority or qualification status was in any way affected by a temporary assignment.
***
The Company and Union were parties to a separate Memorandum of Understanding which also addressed the assignment of work and was designed to enhance efficient operation of the facility. It was the relationship between these two documents that formed the basis for the Union's claim. Specifically the Union challenged Company's temporary assignment of bargaining unit employees to jobs below their attained position on the seniority ladder.
The Progression Ladder which had previously been in place at the facility engendered what the arbitrator referred to as a "not my job" refrain from unit employees. The MOA was designed to address that perception and enhance the efficiency of a struggling operation. The Union claimed, however, that the MOA did not authorize the Company to temporarily assign employees downward, and claimed that such an assignment violated employees' seniority rights.
Arbitrator Beens rejected these claims, concluding:
The Union argues that the giving the Employer the right to assign downward nullifies the seniority provisions of the CBA. I disagree. Union members continue to accrue seniority during their temporary assignments and are only assigned to positions for which they are qualified, again as required by the CBA. The Union presented no evidence that [Grievant's], or any other Local 159 member’s, seniority or qualification status was in any way affected by a temporary assignment.
***
In summary, Article 3.1 gives the Employer broad rights to assign employees, “...irrespective of
any past practices or previous agreements which purported to limit or reserve the types of work to be
assigned to employees in any way.” The CBA, MOA, and Pay for Knowledge provisions relied on by the
Union do not modify the Employer’s rights to make temporary downward assignments under Article 3.1.
Base[d] on the clear, unambiguous contract language, I must deny this grievance.
Arbitrator Beens' award can be found here.
Arbitrator Beens' award can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment