bls_1159_1954.pdf

ARBITRATION of

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABORJames P. Mitchell, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Ewan Clague, CommissionerDigitized for FRASER

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

ARBITRATION OFLABOR-MANAGEMENT GRIEVANCES

Bethlehem Steel Company and

United Steelworkers of America

1942-52

Bulletin No. 1159

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR James P. Mitchell, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Swan Clagvc, Coaunitsionor

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. - Price 35 centsDigitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Letter of Transmittal

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Washington, D. C . , A pril 29, 1954.

The Secretary of Labor:

I have the honor to transmit herewith a study of 10 years of grievance arbitration Linder the co llective bargaining agreem ents of the Bethlehem Steel Company and the United Steelworkers of A m erica (CIO). This study of the experience o f a large company and union in the peaceful adjustment of grievances, as revealed in the examination of approxim ately 1, 000 decisions o f mutually appointed arbitrators, illustrates standards of em ployer-em ployee relationships which are increasingly becom ing a part of A m erican industrial life .

This study was prepared in the Bureau^ Division of Wages and Industrial Relations by Kirk R. Petshek, Solomon Shapiro, and Joseph W. Bloch, with the assistance of Dorothy R. Kittner. Thomas H. Paine and Willmon Fridie participated in the analysis of the decisions.

The Bureau is especially grateful to M r. James C . Phelps, Assistant to the V ice President, Bethlehem Steel Company, for his generous cooperation and suggestions.

Hon. James P . M itchell,Secretary o f Labor.

Ewan Clague, C om m issioner.


Preface

Unions and management have felt increasingly that labor-m anagem ent relations can be im proved if, after a collective bargaining agreem ent is signed, there is an accepted way of resolving disputes which may a rise . Disagreem ents em erging from the existing relationship clearly can be m ost efficiently and equitably handled if w ell-defined p ro cedures are established to facilitate settlement by the parties or , where agreem ent cannot be reached, by a mutually approved outsider, A large proportion of co llective bargaining agreem ents now provide for arbitration as the final step in the grievance procedure.

The type of arbitration discussed in this study is concerned with disputes over grievances arising under existing agreem ents, rather than with the term s of new agreem ents. The arb itrator^ function in cases of this type is to interpret and apply the contract, or to evaluate the evidence if the dispute hinges on questions of fact. The arbitrator may be named in the agreem ent, which makes him the permanent "um pire" for the period specified. The parties, on the other hand, may agree on a procedure through which the arbitrator w ill be named when the case arises (so -ca lled "ad hoc" arbitration); or they may agree in advance on a sm all panel of names, from which one w ill be chosen as needed. Sometimes a tripartite board rather than a single arbitrator is established. Whatever the procedure, the important point is that management and union have agreed to submit to a third party disputes arising out of the daily application of the term s of the document setting forth the employment relationship.

No co llective bargaining agreem ent, no matter how carefu lly drawn up, can provide a c lea r-cu t answer to all of the problem s that might arise in its adm inistration. Although only the parties them selves can attain a full understanding of the problem s of the particular plant and the employment relationship, an arbitrator must to som e extent acquire such an understanding in order to fu lfill his function.

The wording of provisions differs among collective bargaining agreements and may change, for the same plant, as each new agreem ent is negotiated. Hence the interpretation of apparently sim ilar clauses varies . The facts of each case , m oreover, may determine the application of these clauses and guide the a rb itra tor^ judgment. While arbitrators generally are not bound by precedent, some sim ilarity frequently can be d is tinguished among different decisions, and over time some general principles may be observed.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the arbitration decisions in one company. While this study is confined to the experience of an individual company and union, it can be useful beyond the particular circum stances from which it was derived. The decisions and the reasoning behind them must be viewed in the context not only of the agreement and of the company and union practice but also of other decisions rendered previously. The arbitrator is lim ited by the term s of the written agreem ent, which are often not sp ecific . Agreem ent clauses are determined through the give-and-take of co llective b a rgaining, hence neither party may be entirely satisfied with the provisions as negotiated. M oreover, although accepting the award neither party may subscribe fully to the a rb itra tor^ interpretation and his opinions regarding the validity or shortcom ings of any action. This dissatisfaction, in the long run, may lead either to the settlement of a greater proportion of grievances at the interm ediary levels, or to changes in agreement term s, or even to a change in arbitrators.

(v)


Preface - Continued

The Bethlehem Steel Company was selected for study for several reasons. In the first place, it operates in a basic m ass-production industry and employs a large number of w orkers. Secondly, labor-m anagem ent relations in this company w ere relatively harmonious for a number of years. A detailed and carefully planned and nurtured g r iev ance m achinery took care of m ost of the disputes that arose; those that required a rb itration w ere only a sm all percentage of the grievances form ally advanced by em ployees. Finally, the procedure for the selection of arbitrators was quite varied in this situation: F or the first 5 years of contractual relationships, the arbitrators w ere selected !,ad h oc11 from a panel of names, none of whom was chosen too frequently; between 1947 and 1952, arbitration in rotation among a panel of three arbitrators (consisting of a lawyer, an econom ist, and a pro fessor of labor relations) was u se d .1

This study analyzes all arbitration awards of the Bethlehem Steel Company under its m aster agreements with the United Steelworkers of A m erica (CIO), from the inception of the co llective bargaining relationship in m id -1942 through June 1952. The relatively sm all number of disputes (about 1,000) decided by arbitrators, out of about 20,000 form al grievances arising during this period , would appear to indicate the existence of w e llworking grievance m achinery.

1 With the advent of the 1952 contract the parties agreed on a single arbitrator. An increase in caseload during 1953, however, necessitated the appointment of three assistant arbitrators.

(vi)Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Contents

Page

PART I .TYPES OF GRIEVANCES ___________________________________________ 1

Grievance procedure and arb itra tion ----------------------------- -------------------------------- 1C lassification of grievances reaching arbitration ___ :_______________________ 3

Scope of the study ___________________________------- ------------------------------------3Grievances by su b ject_____________________________________________________ 3Grievances by type o f action ._______ ___________________________________3Grievances by p la n ts_________ _____ -_____________ ----------4Grievances by co n tra ct------------ 4

Grievance i s s u e s ____ ________________________________ ---------------------------- 5Wages or job classification __ 5

Wage rates or job c la ss ifica t io n ________________________________________ 5Basis of wage p a y m en t________ 6Prem ium p a y ________ ______________________________________________ 6Nonproductive pay ________________________________________________ 7Other wage g r ie v a n c e s _________________________________________________ 7*

S en ior ity _______ 7D iscipline ________________________________________ _________ ------ ------ 9Job a ss ig n m en t_____________________ ________ ----------------------------------------- ; 9Work force assignm ent_____________________________________________________ 9Work schedule __________________________________________________ 10Bargaining unit ____________________________________________ 10Vacation _______________________________________________________________ ____ 10

PART II. DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE 11

Employee actions which justified p e n a lt ie s _____Im proper work perform ance _________________Im proper job attitudes _ _ _ _ _ _____________Im proper personal conduct -------------- ---------------Union activity in violation o f agreem en t______

Rights and responsibilities o f the p a r t ie s ------------Management prerogatives and responsibilities

Standards of penalty im p o s it io n ___________Standards of company adm in istration_____Assignment to appropriate j o b s ___________

Em ployees1 rights and r e s p o n s ib il it ie s ______Union resp on sib ilities___ _ _ _ _ _ _____________

Selected standards of job p e r fo rm a n ce __________N e g lig e n ce _____________________________________Inability to perform the jo b _______ _____________Insubordination_________________________________

Other problem s in discipline cases ______________Purpose of discipline __________________________Considerations for fixing penalty ______ ______

Past record of the w o r k e r ---------------- ----------Seriousness of the c h a r g e __ __________ _____Amount o f damage ________________________Custom ary p r a c t ic e s _________ _____________Reasonableness of the p e n a lty _____________.Other considerations _______________________

11111111121212121314 14 161718 191920 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

(vii)Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Contents - Continued

Page

PART IUo SENIORITY __________________________________________________________ 23

General interpretation of the seniority clause ___________________ ____________ 23Interpretation of "relative a b il ity "_________ ______________________________ 24Measurement of a b ility __________________________ 25

Employee rights in seniority cases ________________________ ___________________ 26Seniority rights of returning veterans ____________________________________ 26Seniority rights of wartime women em ployees _____________ _____ _________ 27Other seniority rights _____________________________________________________ 28

Other seniority problem s _____________ 28Seniority units _________________________________ __________ _______ ___________ 28Posting of vacancies _________________________________________________ 29Variations of seniority rule for tem porary and new j o b s _____ ___________ 29

PART IV .WAGE RATES AND JOB CLASSIFICATIONS 31

Wage g r iev a n ces , 1942-47 ____ _______________________The 1947 job c la ss ifica tio n plan _________ _______________Wage and c la ss ifica tio n g r iev a n ces , 1947-June 1952

Job c la ss ifica tio n grievan ces ___________________ ____E m ployee c la ss ifica tio n grievan ces ________________B asis fo r denial o f c la ss ifica tio n g rievan ces _____Incentive rate g r ie v a n c e s ____________________________

L o ss o f earnings ____________________________ _____"U n reason able and unfair" r a t e s __ _____________Change fro m tim e to incentive rates _____ _____Q uestion o f tim e or incentive r a t e ____________ _

31323335363738 38404142

TABLES

1. Plants covered by agreements between the Bethlehem SteelCompany and the United Steelworkers of A m erica _______________________ 1

2. Distribution of grievances on which arbitrators rendereddecisions, by subject and final determination,Bethlehem Steel Company, 1942-52 _____________ ____ _______________________ 4 3

3o Distribution of grievances on which arbitrators rendered decisions,by plant and subject, Bethlehem Steel Company, 1942-52 ___________ 5

4. Wages or job classification : Distribution of grievances on which arbitrators rendered decisions, by issue and finaldetermination, Bethlehem Steel Company, 1942-52 _______________ ______ 6

5 Seniority: Distribution of grievances on which arbitrators rendered decisions, by issue and final determination,Bethlehem Steel Company, 1942-52 ____ _____________________ _____ _________ 8

(v iii)Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Arbitration of Labor-Management Grievances: Bethlehem Steel Company

and the United Steelworkers of America, 1942-52

PART I TYPES OF GRIEVANCES

Bethlehem Steel Corporation is the second largest producer o f iron and steel, as well as the largest fabricator and e r e c tor of structural steel and a leading A m erican shipbuilder. The corporation functions through operating subsidiaries, chief of which are the Bethlehem Steel Company and the Bethlehem P acific Coast Steel Corporation.

In 1953 the average employment of the subsidiaries of Bethlehem Steel C orporation was approxim ately 157,000 w o rk e rs .1 M ore than half of these w orkers were cov ered by collective bargaining agreem ents with the United Steelworkers of A m erica (CIO). The steel plants and fabricating works o f the company are located in Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. The largest plant, with an annual capacity o f 5 ,750 ,000 net tons, is located at Sparrows Point, Md.

After a considerable period of dealing with em ployees through an Em ployee Representation Plan, the Bethlehem Steel Company signed its first contract with the United Steelworkers of A m erica (C IO ) in August 1942. Since then contract negotiations have been held on seven different occasions.

Four successive m aster agreem ents have been concluded between Bethlehem and the Steelw orkers, effective 1942, 1915 with later amendments, 1947 with later amendments (including 1949), and 1952. The op er ation of the arbitration machinery under the first three agreem ents (up to JiiLy 1, 1952) is covered by this study.

The 1942 and 1945 agreem ents co v ered 16 and 17 plants and works, re sp e c tively (table 1 ). In early 1946 the 5 West Coast plants were taken over by the Bethlehem P acific Coast Steel Corporation leaving 12 Bethlehem Steel Company plants under the 1947 agreem ent. Eleven plants (the Chicago Wire Plant had been c lo s e d ) plus two warehouses represent the Bethlehem Steel Company s operations under the August 1952 agreem ent. This agreem ent also covers four other subsidiaries of the Bethlehem Steel CorporationBethlehem P acific Coast Steel

1 Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Annual Report, 1953.

Corporation, Buffalo Tank Corporation, Bethlehem Supply Company (California), and the Dundalk Company.

TABLE 1 . Plants covered by agreements between the Bethlehem Steel Company and the

United Steelworkers of Am erica

Contract periodPlants and location

1942-45 1945-47 1947-52

Alameda Works, Calif. ______ _ X X (')Bethlehem, Pa. __ ______________ X X XChicago Wire Plant, 111._______ X XChicago Works, 111. _____ ____Coatesville, Pa. ______________ _ X

X X

Johnstown, P a .__________________ X X XLackawanna, N. Y .____ _______ X X XLebanon, Pa. _________________ _ X X XLeetsdale Works, Pa. _________ X X XLos Angeles, Vernon,

Calif. _____________________ _____ X X Los Angeles Works, Calif. ------ X X l1)Pottstown Works, Pa. _________ X X XRankin Works, Pa. ______________ X X XSeattle, Wash. __________________ X X (*)South San Francisco, Calif. ___ X X l1)Sparrows Point, Md. ________ _ X X XSteelton, Pa. ______ __ _______ X X XW illiamsport, P a .______________ X X X

1 These plants became part of the Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corp. in 1946.

The bargaining unit in term s of type o f w orkers covered generally rem ained uniform for all four contracts. Specifically included were the production and maintenance em ployees; specifica lly excluded were ex ecutive, salaried, o ffice , supervisory, and guard ca tegories.

Grievance Procedure and Arbitration

The grievance m achinery provided by the four agreem ents covered disputes re garding the meaning or application of the agreem ent or disputed m atters relating to wages, hours of work, and other working conditions. There was to be no suspension of work because o f such disputes. If an em ployee believed he had a justifiable r e quest or complaint he could discuss it orally with his forem an, with or without the p re s ence o f a union steward. Failing a satisfactory settlement o f the m atter, he could then enter upon the form al steps of the griev ance procedure outlined in the agreem ents. The four form al steps prior to arbitration

299823 0 - 54 - 2( i )


2w ere described as a general standard which could be m odified at any plant by agreement o f both parties.

Step 1: The form al procedure r e quired the written presentation o f the griev ance by the em ployee or the union steward to the forem an. If not settled, appeal to the department superintendent (Step 2) was to be made within a specified number o f days. If not appealed within this time lim it, the case was considered closed .

Step 2: The procedure provided fordiscussion between the department union steward and the department superintendent as the next step. If the grievance was not settled at this level, appeal to the plant management s representative the person handling industrial relations problem s at the plant was to be made within a specified number o f days. Again, unless the appeal was made within the specified tim e lim it, the grievance was considered settled.

Step 3: If no agreem ent was reached at the preceding step, discussion was held between the managements representative, the plant grievance com m ittee, and a plant union representative (designated by the union, generally not a plant em ployee). If an opportunity for such discussion was not provided by the management s representative within a specified number of days, the grievance could be appealed to the fourth step, unless the period was mutually extended. A griev ance not p rocessed properly through the first two steps was re ferred back to the proper supervisory o fficia ls unless the grievance related to a general matter which could not be settled by such o fficia ls . Minutes of the proceedings were prepared by the managements representative and signed by the latter and the grievance com m ittee chairman. If the grievance was not settled at this step, it was appealed within a specified number of days to the fourth step. A grievance not appealed within a specified number o f days to the next step was considered settled.

Step 4: Grievances not settled in thefirst three steps were d iscussed between two union representatives and two company rep resentatives. Written notice of the intention o f either party to take up a grievance under this step was to be given to the other party within a specified number o f days after its disposition in Step 3.

Meetings as necessary under Step 4 and any other procedures required to settle a grievance were agreed upon by representatives of the company and the union. Minutes o f the d iscussion m eetings under this step

were to be prepared in p rescribed form by the company representatives and signed by them and by the union representatives within a specified number of days after such m eeting.

If a grievance, after being presented through this step, remained unsettled, it could then be appealed to arbitration. This had to be done within a specified number of days after final meeting or after the union rep re sentative s receipt of a draft of the minutes, whichever period was longer.

The 1942 and 1945 agreem ents p ro vided that any union steward or any griev ance com m ittee m em ber, upon making a r e quest to his forem an, was to be granted time off without pay for the purpose of investigating and settling grievances with which he was concerned. The 1947 and 1952 agreements, however, were m ore specific with respect to this subject. They provided that any union steward, upon making a request to his forem an, was to be granted time off without pay to investigate and settle g riev ances in Step 1 or 2 presented by an em ployee in his department; whereas a griev ance com m ittee m em ber at any plant was to be granted sim ilar priv ileges to handle grievances in Step 3 or 4 with which he was concerned. In this connection the 1947 and 1952 agreem ents a lso provided that the griev ance com m ittee m em ber, upon request to the management s representative, was to be perm itted to visit other departments. The 1947 and 1952 agreem ents further provided, in connection with the processing of griev ances at a particular plant in Step 4, that an outside representative of the union, so certified to the company, was to be perm itted to visit the plant.

A ll 4 agreem ents provided that g riev ances were not subject to the grievance p ro cedure unless they were presented within 30 days after the date of origination of the facts or events upon which the grievance was based. 2

2 Provisions relating to discharge of employees included a procedure for hearings that differed, in its early stages, from the regular grievance procedure. Within 5 days after receipt of discharge notice, the employee presented his written request for a hearing to the management s representative. A hearing was held by a company official with the employee who may have been represented by plant grievance committee members. If the case remained unsettled after the company s decision, the grievance was to be presented to the plant management s representative within 10 days after receipt of such decision and then processed under the regular grievance procedure beginning at Step 3 and proceeding, if necessary, through arbitration.


3Under all agreem ents a single a rb itrator acted upon the cases reaching the final step in the grievance procedure. During the period covered by the 1942 and 1945 agreements a panel o f several arbitrators was suggested by one of the parties, from which the other party was to select one person. If none of the proposed arbitrators was a c ceptable, the p rocess of submitting names was reversed, which in all cases led to agreement on the arbitrator. During the term of the 1947 agreem ent the parties agreed on a panel of three men, who a rb itrated in rotation. The fees of the arbitrators were shared by the company and the union.

The arbitrator had authority only to interpret and apply the provisions of the agreement to a particular case and had no authority to alter any provision . A ll d e c isions were final and binding insofar as the case in dispute was concerned.

C lassification of Grievances Reaching Arbitration

G rievances reaching arbitration represented only a small portion of those fo r mally presented at the first step of the griev ance procedure. This is strikingly illustrated by the data available up to January 1, 1951. These data indicate that an overwhelming proportion of the grievances were taken care of by the parties them selves. A lm ost 17,000 grievances were submitted to the first step of the grievance procedure. Over 15,300 of these w ere denied; in over 900 the "g r iev - ant's" request was granted; and in alm ost 400 a com prom ise was effected. Of the less than 14,800 grievances previously denied and p re sented at the second step, about 1,100 were granted; about 600 com prom ised; and about 12,600 denied. At the third step approximately 11,600 cases w ere handled of which over 7,300 were refused; 1,200 granted; and less than 500 com prom ised. Of the m ore than 5,300 grievances brought to the fourth step, m ore than 3,800 were denied; le ss than 200 granted; and less than 150 com prom ised. Of the disputes remaining unsettled at the fourth step, about 2,000 were appealed to arbitration in the period 1942-January 1951. Many of these were withdrawn or otherwise disposed of before the arbitrator received the case or rendered an award.

Scope of the Study

This report encom passes all d is putes re ferred to arbitration and on which some type of action was taken during the

period from August 1942 through June 1952 under the m aster contracts negotiated with the United Steelworkers o f A m erica (CIO). During this period , alm ost 2,400 disputes arising in 15 plants of the company (identified in table 3) w ere submitted to arbitration. Of these, over half w ere d isposed of p r ior to the a rb itra to rs rendering a d ecisionm ore than 1, 150 were withdrawn by the union, and about 100 w ere settled by the parties. In over 100 cases , an arbitration hearing had not yet been held by July 1, 1952.

The following sections deal with the classification and analysis of the 1,003 cases on which the arbitrator acted, either in the form o f denying or granting the grievantf s request in whole or in part, or by referring the case back to the parties for further negotiation or additional inform ation. They are treated according to the subject involved, action taken, plant origin , contract under which they arose , and the basic issue and its justification outlined in the grievant*s claim .

G rievances by Subject

M ore than three-fourths (788) o f the 1,003 cases were related specifica lly either to wages or job classifications, or problem s concerning seniority (table 2). Most o f the wage grievances were over hourly or incentive rates established for a specified job or requests for adjustments in hourly or incentive rates. A lm ost tw o-thirds o f the sen iority grievances reaching arbitration resulted from layoff, downgrading, or "bum ping," and an additional 20 percent concerned prom otion problem s.

Next in prevalence were those griev ances concerning discipline or work force assignm ent. Combined, these categories a c counted for alm ost 15 percent of the total number of grievances reaching arbitration. D isagreem ents over such issues as job a s signment, vacation rights, work schedule, or jobs excluded or included .n the bargaining- unit, w ere the causes of m ost of the remaining grievances.

Grievances by Type of Action

The arbitrator% disposition o f a d is pute depends to a great extent upon his interpretation of the clause of the collective bargaining agreem ent under which the grievance arose and his evaluation of Jie evidence submitted by the parties. B efore considering the substantive issu es , however, the arb itrator has to decide, first,what types of g riev ances he can arbitrate and how far his ju r is diction reaches, according to the term s of


4TABLE 2 . Distribution of grievances on which arbitrators rendered decisions, by subject andfinal determination, Bethlehem Steel Company, 1942-52

Subject Total Granted Partiallygranted DeniedDism issed for lack of

jurisdiction

Dism issedas

untimely

Referred back to parties for further

negotiations or added information

Settled or withdrawn

Pending or disposition unrecorded

Total .................. .......................................... 1,003 200 121 503 31 57 35 56

Wages or job classification _ 485 95 71 248 26 21 10 14Seniority _____________________________ 303 71 20 143 1 22 20 26Discipline _____________________________ 89 16 15 54 - 3 1 -Work force assignment 53 7 9 24 1 1 4 7Job assignm ent______________________ 14 5 - 9 - - - -V acation______________________________ 6 1 1 2 1 1 - -Work schedule 6 - 1 5 - - - -Bargaining unit ______________________ 5 - - 4 - 1 - -T ran sfer......... .............................................. 4 1 - 3 - - - -Other working conditions 1 __ ______ 23 4 4 11 2 - - 2Subject not indicated________________ 15 - ~ ~ 8 _ 7

1 Grievances over the furnishing of work clothing without cost to the employee, installation of bulletin boards and pay telephones, and plant improvements for safety reasons were among the subjects included in this group.

the agreem ent. Secondly, he must determine whether the specific time limitations, between steps of the grievance procedure and after the final step,have been observed. Both, lack of tim eliness and of jurisdiction were som etim es charged by the company. In all, 57 cases were d ism issed for untim eliness, and 31 were dropped because the arbitrator ruled that he lacked jurisdiction (table 2).

The grievants* requests in about 50 percent of the cases were denied by the a rb itrator; in 20 percent of the cases they were granted; and an additional 12 percent of the grievances were partially decided in favor of the grievant. The arbitrator re ferred about 10 percent of the disputes back to the parties for further negotiation or for additional inform ation. Of these cases, m ore than half w ere pending at the time of the study or their disposition was unknown to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; the rem ainder were either settled by the parties or withdrawn.

In term s of subjects, le ss than half of the seniority and work assignment g r iev ances w ere denied, while in virtually all other classifications 50 percent or m ore of the grievances were denied. Approxim ately 23 percent of the seniority grievances and nearly 20 percent of the wage grievances were granted in full.

G rievances by Plants

The prevalence of the various types of grievance cases differed to some extent from plant to plant. At Lackawanna, where 23 percent o f the total number of cases arose , wage grievances predominated, constituting m ore than 60 percent of those that arose at this plant (table 3).

The m ost prevalent type of arbitration case arising at the Sparrows Point plant arose out of an unusual situation relating to seniority. Women em ployees, although r e latively rare among the production and maintenance w orkers of the company as a whole, constituted alm ost the entire working force of one of the sm all units at this plant. A single layoff action involving women em ployees accounted for 80 of the 115 seniority cases ; the separate cases , however, were handled simultaneously by the arbitrator. A lm ost 40 percent o f the cases from this plant dealt with wages and job classification .

An equal proportion o f seniority and wage grievance cases (40 percent) arose at the Bethlehem plant. The seniority g riev ances, in a large number o f cases, resulted from returning veterans being granted "su persen iority" rights. Ten percent of the r e maining grievances at the plant concerned disciplinary action.

At the Lebanon and Johnstown plants, wages or job classification cases predom inated, whereas at W illiam sport two-thirds w ere seniority cases , the m ajority o f which involved veterans1 "supersen iority" rights. Approxim ately 40 percent of the cases a r is ing at the Steelton plant pertained to wages or job classifications.

G rievances by Contract

M ore than tw o-thirds of the 1,003 grievance cases arose under the agreem ents in effect from August 1942 to A pril 1947, and le ss than one-third under the agreement in effect from A pril 1947 through June 1952, the termination date o f this analysis. The proportion of grievances by subject varied among these contracts.Digitized for FRASER


5TABLE 3 . Distribution of grievances on which arbitrators rendered decisions,by plant and subject, Bethlehem Steel Company, 1942-52

Plant TotalWages

and job classifi

cation

Seniority

D iscipline

Workforce

assignment

Jobassign

mentVacation

Workschedule

Bargaining

unitTrans

fer

Other working conditions 1

Subjectnotindicated

All plants________________ 1,003 485 303 89 53 14 6 6 5 4 23 15

Bethlehem ---------------------- 199 80 79 20 6 2 3 1 1 7Chicago (2 plants)____ 5 3 - 1 - - - - - _ 1 _Johnstown __ 158 88 35 19 4 2 1 _ 2 _ 1 6Lackawanna_____________ 234 141 26 12 38 9 1 - _ _ 7Lebanon_________________ 62 38 14 3 - 1 1 1 1 _ 3 _Leetsdale________________ 3 1 - 2 - - - - - _ _ _Los Angeles 2 ___________ 2 2 - - - - - - - - - -Pott st own________________ 3 2 - 1 - - - - - - - -Rankin----------------------------- 1 1 - - - - - - - - - _Seattle 2 ..................... .......... 1 1 - - - - - - - - - _South San Francisco2___ 6 6 - - - - - - - - - -Sparrows Point _____ 254 98 115 20 5 - 3 1 - 2 4 6Steelton_________________ 43 17 13 9 - - - - - 1 - 3W illiam sport___________ 32 7 21 2 - 1 1 -

1 Grievances over the furnishing of work clothing without cost to the employee, installation of bulletin boards and pay telephones, and plant improvements for safety reasons were among those included in this group.

2 Covers period when plant was in Bethlehem Steel Company.

Under the 1942 agreem ent, e ffe c tive until A pril 1945, the m ost prevalent type of arbitration case concerned wages or job classifications. The factors which may have contributed to the relatively large number of wage cases during this period are d iscussed in Part IV of this study.

Under the contract effective from 1945 to May 1947, the m ost prevalent type of grievances handled by the arbitrator were those relating to seniority. Most of these occu rred as a result o f "bumping, " downgrading, or layoff actions which jeop ardized the aggrieved employees* rights to a particular job . A very influential factor contributing to the cause of these griev ances was the problem of returning veterans, both those exercising their reem ployment rights and those being granted so -ca lled "supersen iority" rights. In a considerable number o f seniority g riev ances, the grievants were women hired during W orld War II and then, after the war, laid off.

Work fo rce assignment, job assignment, and discipline grievances occurred m ore frequently under the agreement e ffe c tive in 1947 than u

6TABLE 4 . Wages or job classification: Distribution of grievances on which arbitrators rendered decisions,

by issue and final determination, Bethlehem Steel Company, 1942-52

Issue Total Granted Partiallygranted DeniedDismissed for lack of

jurisdiction

Dismissedas

untimely





T otal---------------------------------------------------- 485 95 71 248 26 21 10 14

Wage rates or job classification___ 326 59 59 160 19 11 9 9Basis of wage payment --------------- 40 4 2 23 1 7 1 2Premium pay__ ____________________ 21 7 1 12 1 - - -Pay when temporarily assigned____ 19 4 - 13 1 1 - -Nonproductive pay __ ---------------- 15 3 1 11 - - - -Report p a y ___________________________ 13 8 2 3 - - - -Back pay ___________________________ 8 1 - 3 2 1 - 1Down tim e____________________________ 8 1 - 4 2 1 - -Short-hand pay ____________________ 17 6 4 6 - - - 1Method of wage computation------------- 10 1 2 7 - - - -Daily minimum guarantee__________ 3 - - 2 - - - 1M iscellaneous_______________________ 5 1

'4

' *

Many of the wage rate or job c la s sification grievances involved a request for an adjustment in incentive rates. These grievances fe ll into two groupsthose ob jecting to a changed or new rate set by management, and those requesting an increase in the incentive rate.

In the form er group, the grievant1s claim of inadequacy and unfairness o f the changed or new incentive rate set by management was generally based on the contention that workload, job responsibility, or time requirem ent for perform ing the job had increased, or at least had not decreased ; the newchallengedrate had often been set because of technological changes such as a change in p rocess , operation, method o f production, equipment, or change in product. The charge o f inadequacy was a lso occasionally based on the contention that the changed rate was causing a reduction in earnings, did not compensate for the additional job functions involved, or was not warranted by the technological change involved. It was also claim ed in some cases that the disputed rates had been set illegally and that the company had failed to use the correct techniques in making time studies in order to set the proper rate.

In the other group of incentive rate cases , an increase of the rate was requested for reasons such as increased workload or job requirem ents. Additional reasons mentioned included reduction in size o f crew , handling of heavier m ateria ls , no re lie f period, or a change in the method o f computing earnings. G rievances were a lso occasionally based on the claim of the perform ance of duties sim ilar to the duties of other em ployees receiving a higher rate.

Basis o f wage paym ent.A number o f disputes over the basis of wage pay

menthourly or incentiveand the method of wage computation had to be arbitrated (table 4). In many of these cases, hourly rated em ployees claim ed that they should be placed on an incentive wage plan because of their contribution to increased production and/or the installation o f new equipment; because others w ere working under such a system and they them selves had worked on an incentive basis in the past; or in order to eliminate wage differentials.

The type of pay an employee should receive when working on a repair turn was involved in a few grievances. In these cases it was contended that an employee should be paid on the basis of his past average earnings or the earnings received on the next operating turn rather than straight hourly rates.

The method used in computing an em ployee1 s earnings was in dispute in 10 cases . Grievances of this type included requests that the company use its old method of computing piece-rate earnings because the new method caused the grievant to suffer a lo ss o f earnings; or that the company change the method used in calculating average hourly earnings in order to determine the proper wages for experimental work. The grievants in some of these cases a lso charged that they were never inform ed of the method of computation used.

Prem ium pay.Some cases were based on a claim by the worker that he had not received prem ium pay to which he felt entitled (table 4 ) . Such cases involved either the sixth or the seventh consecutive day o f the em ployee1 s workweek, which w ere prem ium days, with the grievant p ro testing that he had not received the proper rate or that he had not been perm itted, or called , to work on a prem ium day when his weekf s schedule led him to expect it.Digitized for FRASER


7Nonproductive pay. The issue of whether em ployees should be paid for nonproductive time such as time spent meeting with the superintendent, lunch periods, rest periods, holidays not worked, or time not worked due to an alleged lockout, was in dispute in m ost of the cases dealing with nonproductive pay (table 4 ) . In several grievances over pay for time spent meeting with the superintendent the grievants claim ed that they were entitled to prem ium pay because the meetings were held or continued after working hours. The holiday pay requested by em ployees not scheduled to work on a holiday was based on the fact that em ployees who did work received p re mium pay. Women em ployees requested pay for rest periods that were required by a State statute. Another grievant claim ed he should have been paid for time lost while waiting for a closed truck after he had re fused to ride in an open truck because of inclem ent weather.

In a few grievances reaching arbitration, report (ca ll-in ) pay allegedly due under the term s o f the agreem ent was claim ed. The reason in m ost of these cases was the unavailability o f regular work due to such factors as weather conditions or machine or equipment breakdown, which resulted in an em ployee being sent home without working or completing work for the specified number o f hours, or being a s signed to other than his regular work. In one case , the telegram notifying the griev ant not to report did not reach him until after he had reported to work.

Other wage grievances. Most of the wage disputes arising from tem porary assignments were the result of an em ployee* s cla im that he was im properly paid at his regular rate when tem porarily a ssigned to work on a higher rated job . The reasons for this cla im w ere previous r e ceipt of the higher rate, past practice , or perform ance o f the same duties as a higher rated em ployee.

Delays due to machine breakdown, setting up of new jobs , defective m aterial, or change in p ro cess , caused em ployees in some cases to lose time and production which resulted in a reduction in earnings. These em ployees requested either re im bursement of earnings lost, pay for delays in excess o f one hour, or the establishment o f a schedule o f allowances for earnings lost due to machine breakdowns.

In m ost of the grievances concerning short-hand pay, w orkers asked that the

wages of absent m em bers of their crew be divided among those working. This claim was based on the production o f the same amount o f work although they worked short- handed.

Back pay was asked for in a few grievances resulting from the settlement of a previous grievance, a reclassification , or a denial of a tem porary assignment. In many o f the other wage grievances, as well as those concerning subjects such as d is cipline, seniority, e tc ., back pay was asked for in conjunction with the prim ary issue involved. In many other grievances the em ployee asked that the award be made retroactive.

Seniority

The same criteria for prom otion to nonsupervisory positions, layoff, and reca ll were provided for in all o f the agreements: If ability to perform the work and physical fitness were relatively equal, length of serv ice was to govern. Each agreement provided that the seniority units were to be negotiated on a plant-by-plant basis.

The 1947 agreem ent was the first to specify the method to be used in filling tem porary vacancies. In such cases, the company was to consider length of service only to a degree consistent with efficiency o f the operation and the safety o f em ployees.

Each agreem ent contained a clause guaranteeing reem ploym ent rights to r e turning veterans. Veterans were a lso p er mitted to count the time spent in the serv ice as time worked for seniority purposes. The 1947 agreement a lso included a p rov ision that the company would endeavor, as job vacancies becam e available, to move any em ployee who was reem ployed under the m ilitary clause to or toward the job that he might have attained if he had not entered the Arm ed F orces .

Most seniority grievances reaching arbitration resulted from curtailment of plant operations due to lack o f work, or technological changes causing abolishment of jobs or elimination o f specified machines, which required the laying off or downgrading o f surplus personnel (table 5). The other large group of seniority cases dealt with prom otions made or vacancies filled as a result of norm al employee turnover or the creation of new jobs due to increased production or plant expansion.


8TABLE 5 . Seniority: Distribution of grievances on which arbitrators rendered decisions,by issue and final determination, Bethlehem Steel Company, 1942-52

Issue Total Granted Partiallygranted DeniedDismissed for lack of

jurisdiction

Dismissedas

untimely





Total __________*______________________ 303 71 20 143 1 22 20 26

Layoff, bumping, or downgrading 194 51 6 78 1 14 18 26

Promotion ___________________________ 61 14 5 36 - 6 - -Temporary vacancy________________ 12 4 1 6 - - 1 -Procedure ___________________________ 7 - 4 2 - 1 - -Transfer ____________________________ 7 - 1 5 - - 1 -Length of service cred it------------------ 5 - 1 4 - - - -Seniority l i s t ________________________ 5 - - 5 - - - -Reassignment_______________________ 4 1 - 2 - 1 - -R e ca ll________________________________ 2 1 1 - - - - -M iscellaneous_______________________ 6 1 5 ~

' '

In the cases studied, the grievants generally maintained that their greater seniority (length o f serv ice), or greater seniority and relatively equal ability, entitled them to be prom oted to a vacancy that existed, or not to be downgraded or laid off. It was also claim ed, in a few instances, that experience, skill, or physical fitness, in addition to greater seniority, entitled the grievant to the prom otion or, in the case of a reduction in force , to retention on his job .

In addition to greater seniority, claim s o f im proper prom otion, layoff, downgrading, bumping, or reca ll were based on various other reasons. For example, one grievant1 s claim to a prom otion was based on the fact that he had greater seniority by virtue of having previously accepted tem porary assignments which the prom oted em ployee had refused. Another claim ed prom otion to a job and also demanded a trial period in order to demonstrate his ability to perform the higher rated work.

Seniority grievances involving the M bar gaining unit" also were submitted to arbitration. In a few of these pertaining to prom otions, the grievant maintained that because of his greater unit seniority, in accordance with past practice , he should have been prom oted to the job outside the bargaining unit; or that the job was a nonsupervisory one, therefore within the bargaining unit. In a few cases, the union objected to supervisory em ployees being perm itted to "blimp" em ployees in the bargaining unit.

The type of seniority unitin the plant, in the department, or on -th e-job that should govern in filling vacancies or in laying off or downgrading em ployees was

the issue in a number of grievances. The failure to establish a seniority unit for a new department gave r ise to a few o f the disputes involving prom otion. In these cases, it was claim ed that plant seniority should govern the filling o f jobs in this new department. Other grievances involved the problem o f which seniority unit should govern; e .g ., a grievant claim ed that, a lthough he had less job seniority, he should not have been downgraded because o f his greater departmental seniority.

A number of grievances arose over filling tem porary vacancies occurring in a higher rated job or in a job with prom o - tional opportunities. Among such cases was the claim of a worker which was based not only on his seniority but also on an alleged company rule that gave him the right to fill a vacancy on a specified m achine.

The right of an em ployee with greater length of serv ice to be transferred to a job of equal or low er pay that had prom otional opportunities, or that was considered a prom otion by the claimant be cause of its desirability, including work on another shift, was the cause of several grievances.

Veterans returning from W orld War II could exert their reem ploym ent or their seniority or "supersen iority" rights. This re stilted in some nonveteran em ployees being bumped, downgraded, or laid off. In grievances occurring as a result o f this, the affected nonveteran usually based his claim on greater seniority.

Most of the cases in which the veterans were the grievants involved the claim to prom otion to jobs filled while they were in m ilitary serv ice , by virtue of theirDigitized for FRASER


9having greater seniority than the nonveterans prom oted. In one case, however, a nonveteran with le ss seniority than a veteran whose length of serv ice included time spent in m ilitary serv ice claim ed the right to a prom otion based on his ability and willingness to do the work.

The cases involving the laying off of women hired during the war period have already been mentioned. These em ployees, claiming that they were covered by the seniority provisions of the agreem ent, felt that their seniority rights had been violated when they were laid o ff and men with a llegedly le ss seniority were retained.

Another group of grievances involved the union1 s request for posting and publishing of pertinent seniority data, and for consultation with the union in seniority cases . In one case the union requested such consultation to be held p r ior to the company adopting "week-about" scheduling,3 because senior men felt that they had been adversely affected by the scheduling.

D iscipline

The right to discharge, suspend, or otherwise discipline an em ployee for just cause was guaranteed to management under the term s of the agreem ents in e ffect since 1942. "Just cause" for d is c iplinary action was not defined in any o f the agreem ents except with reference to the strike prohibition provisions, the violation of which specifica lly gave the company the right to suspend and later to discharge.

D isciplinary action of the company was the cause of 89 disputes brought before arbitrators (table 2). In m ore than a fifth of the discipline grievances, charges of negligence were cited. In another fifth of the cases , insubordination or violation of company rules was charged. P oor w orkmanship and violation o f the no-strike p ro visions were the causes o f disciplinary a c tion in slightly le ss than a fifth o f the cases.

D ischarge, the m ost severe d isc iplinary action that the company could im pose upon an em ployee, was challenged as unjust and im proper in 17 of the 89 cases . Demotion, le ss severe than discharge but a m ore severe disciplinary action than sus

3 An arrangement under which, during a period of temporary work shortage, half the work force was scheduled full-tim e 1 week and the other half the following week.

pension, was contested as unfair in only six of the grievances. Suspension was involved in the bulk of the remaining d isc iplinary grievances. The type of penalty im posed on an em ployee usually depended upon the seriousness of the offense as well as the em ployee1 s past record and the surrounding circum stances. A s a result, the grievant in some cases , although admitting his guilt, contended that the degree o f d is ciplinary action was not warranted. Usually the grievant, claim ing that the disciplinary action was im proper or excessive , r e quested reim bursem ent of wages lost.

Job Assignm ent

Job assignment fe ll within the p re rogatives o f management. In m ost o f the 14 cases arising in this area (table 2) the employee objected to perform ing specified duties and requested re lie f from p erform ing them. In one case, the grievant re quested alternatively an adjustment in his wage rate. Generally, cla im s w ere made that certain duties exceeded the scope of the employee*s job classification or description, were not being perform ed by others on sim ilar jobs , or were included in his job description but excluded from the job description of other w orkers.

In a few cases , the em ployee objected to being required to perform his regular duties when assigned to perform others; to being required to perform outside duties during slack periods; or to having his duties perform ed by others. Objection by the union to the perform ance of production and maintenance work by an employee outside o f the bargaining unit was the basis o f one arbitrated dispute.

Work F orce Assignm ent

No specific clause governing work fo rce assignment was included in any of the agreem ents with the exception of the clause defining management1 s rights, which granted management the exclusive right to increase or reduce the working fo rce , as long as other provisions o f the agreem ents were not violated. However, the so -ca lled " lo ca l practice" provision included in the 1947 agreement provided that should management change or eliminate any local practice or custom then in effect and not covered by any prov ision of the agreement, the em ployee affected by such change could seek recou rse , if warranted, through the regular grievance procedure.

299823 0 - 5 4 - 3


10

Problem s dealing with the size of the work fo rce were the cause of 53 d is putes reaching arbitration (table 2). Excess ive or increased workload, and safety and health m easures w ere the m ost com mon reasons cited by the em ployees in their claim s for re lie f. L oss of earnings, length o f re lie f period (spell-out tim e), or increased production was cited as ju stifica tion fo r requesting an increase in the size o f the crew in several disputes.

In about a fourth of these cases, objection was made to the company s re ducing the original size of the crew , on the basis that operation changes, change in equipment or in plant, or in the type of work perform ed, did not warrant a reduction, and that the reduction caused an excessive or burdensome workload and endangered the safety and health o f the crew .

Work Schedule

A ll the agreem ents required that management attempt to schedule 85 percent o f the em ployees at any plant on a norm al workweek o f 5 consecutive days. The earlie r agreem ents provided for as much notice o f schedule changes as possib le ; the 1947 agreem ent specified that weekly work schedules be posted or made known, in accordance with prevailing p ractices at the respective plants, not later than Friday of each week. Thereafter, changes w ere p e r m itted only i f the cause was beyond the company s control or because of the r e quirements o f the business.

In some o f the few disputes over work schedules that required arbitration (table 2) it was claim ed that the work schedule of the company was illegal in term s of the agreem ent. In one of these cases the grievants requested that the schedule be changed to perm it them weekends off, particularly Sundays. Another dispute involved a request for a mandatory workweek of Monday to Monday, with the first 5 consecutive days as workdays and the next 2

consecutive days as rest days or prem ium day8 if worked. Establishment o f rotating shifts was the cause of one grievance.

Bargaining Unit

A ll the agreem ents defined the bargaining unit and specified which em ployees were to be included or excluded from it. They a lso provided that any questions concerning this clause could be re ferred to arbitration for final settlement.

Only 5 of the cases studied involved m erely the question o f whether or not a job was included in the bargaining unit or the right o f management to rem ove a job from the bargaining unit (table 2). In one case the union objected to the elimination o f a job in the bargaining unit and the creation o f a new position outside the bargaining unit with allegedly identical duties. In another, the union objected to m anagements permitting supervisory em ployees, outside the bargaining unit, to perform production and maintenance work which caused em ployees in the bargaining unit a lo ss in earnings. The question of whether a superv isory job which required working with tools was included in the bargaining unit was the basis for one o f the grievances.

Vacation

G rievances involving questions re lating to vacations were re ferred to arb itration infrequently. In the 6 arbitrated cases , no single grievance was outstanding. In 2 cases , the dispute concerned an em ployee s eligibility for a paid vacation. In one of these, the em ployee claim ed that his absence for virtually an entire year due to illness should not deprive him of a paid vacation. One grievance occu rred when a resigning em ployee maintained that he was entitled to vacation pay since he had com pleted the necessary work and serv ice r e quirements for it. In another instance, the em ployee felt he should have received 48 hours vacation pay instead of 40 because parts o f the plant were on a 48-hour schedule during his vacation period.


PART II DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE

Orderly plant operation based on proper behavior and w ork perform ance of the em ployees is essential to efficient production. M anagem ents duty to conduct such an orderly organization requires authority to im pose discipline for a breach of good behavior or work perform ance.

BethlehemJs agreem ents with the Steelw orkers reserved to the company the right to discipline and discharge its workers for cause; at the same time the agreem ents safeguarded certain rights of the em ployees. A rticle X III1 o f the contracts read as follow s:

The management of the plants and works , . . . including the . . . suspending, discharging or otherwise disciplining of em ployees, . . are the exclusive functions of the management; provided, however, that in the exercise of such functions the management shall observe the p ro visions of this agreement and shall not discrim inate against any em ployee or applicant fo r employment because of his m em bership in or lawful activity on behalf of the union.

Employee Actions Which Justified Penalties

Causes for disciplinary action, except for illegal strike activity were not enum erated in the agreem ents. An analysis of the arbitration decisions revealed a wide variety of employee actions which have been upheld as "just cause" for discipline. F or purpose of analysis, the disciplined actions were classified into four categories: Improper work perform ance, im proper job attitudes, im proper personal conduct, and union activity in violation of agreem ent.

Im proper Work Perform ance

The right of the em ployer to expect a fa ir day*s w ork in return for fa ir wages generally carries with it the right to penalize

1 Contract clause numbers applicable to the cases cited are those of the 1945 and 1947 contracts, covering most of the cases reviewed. Numeration was slightly different in the 1942 contract but the clauses themselves were substantially similar.

when it becom es certain that w ork is inadequately or im properly perform ed. Inability or unwillingness to do the job properly has been held by the arbitrators in a number of Bethlehem cases to be justification for penalties.

Disputes involving demotions for incom petence in the technical perform ance of the job were few among those arbitrated. Sew* eral cases of discipline of w orkers in m ore responsible jobs w ere based on poor judgment or lack of leadership qualities of the incum bents. Intentionally limiting production was another cause for penalty. M ost of the cases relating to work perform ance w ere those in which negligence or lack of "due ca re " on the part of the worker were alleged to have been responsible for damage.

Improper Job Attitudes

Several of the Bethlehem arbitration cases involved em ployee actions which may be grouped as "im proper attitudes toward the jo b . " Irresponsibility, evidenced in h orse play which endangered fellow workmen, was cause for discharge. Refusal to perform a reasonable assignment and refusal to work overtim e in an em ergency were other reasons for discipline. A relatively large number of cases involved actions classed as "insubordination, " which ranged from refusing to obey specific orders to arguing with superv iso rs . Irregular attendance without justifiable explanation has been accepted as a valid reason for discipline. Falsifying records r e lating to the job a lso has been held to justify disciplinary m easures.

Improper Personal Conduct

Company authority over personal conduct is generally lim ited to em ployee behavior during working hours and to those actions which affect general m orale and discipline. Obviously, fighting on company property cannot be tolerated, and the participants may be punished. Abusive language which may affect plant discipline has a lso been considered by arbitrators as cause fo r d iscipline.

Deliberate and repeated infractions of the rules of good conduct have been held by the Bethlehem arbitrators to warrant punishment. The abuse of freedom of speech, for instance, as in the case of an individual who made h im self obnoxious to his fellow w orkers, was considered justification for penalty.

(idDigitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

12

Union A ctiv ity in V iolation o f A greem en t

Bethlehem s agreem en ts with the union p rov id ed : "N o em ployee m ay engage in union a ctiv ity on the p rop erty of the com pany in any m anner which shall in terfere with p r o duction or engage in any union activ ity on com pany t im e ." In severa l Bethlehem ca ses involving such actions the right of the c o m pany to d iscip lin e was upheld.

When em ployees engaged in illega l strik e a ctiv ity , the con tracts gave the com pany the right to d isch a rge . A rb itra tors upheld this com pany right in a num ber o f ca s e s .

Rights and R esp on sib ilities o f the P a rties

P re se n t-d a y em p lo y e r-e m p lo y e e r e lationships a re based on a pattern o f rights and resp on sib ilit ie s beyond those req u ired by the law. Thus, in union-m anagem ent situations, m anagem ent s right to d isc ip lin e is typ ica lly re s tr ic te d to actions taken fo r " ju st ca u se " and m ay not be e x e r c ise d in an a rb itra ry m ann er . A rt ic le XI o f the Bethlehem con tracts p rov id ed a m ean s, through im partia l a rb itra tion , fo r em ployees to appeal what they co n s id ered unjust or d iscr im in a tory d isc ip lin a ry treatm ent a fter other steps in the grievan ce p roced u re had been exhausted.

M anagem ent P rerog a tiv es and

Standards o f penalty im p osition . The opinion of the a rb itra tors in the Bethlehem ca se s on m anagem ent s right to d iscip lin e has been c le a r ly e x p re sse d . As one a rb itra tor put it, " . . . it is c le a r that m anagem ent o rd in ar ily has the exclu sive right to d ecide on the d iscip lin in g o f em p loy ees. Though its d e c is ion s m ay be challenged in a rb itra tion , the burden is on the union to p rove that the d is cip lin e im posed was a rb itra ry , un reason able , d is cr im in a to ry or a con tract v io la tion . "

The scope and lim itations of m anagem en t s rights in im posing penalties was c o m m ented on by the a rb itra tor in another ca se . In his w ords:

An e laborate and apparently fa ir and su cce ss fu l p roced u re has been developed to co v e r d isch arges in o rd er to p rotect the rights not only o f the m an but a lso the com pany. By this p roced u re a chain o f evidence is estab lished p r io r to d is ch a rg e . In this way the em ployee is w arned regardin g the attitude o f m anagem ent tow ard h im . Since any one o f these

w arnings can be challenged by the e m p loy ee , he m ay through this p ro ce d u re p ro te c t his righ ts . S im ilar ly the rights o f m anagem ent a re fu lly p rotected s in ce fa ilu re to su cce ss fu lly challenge a d is cip lin e is very strong presu m ption of guilt.

These observa tion s a re not intended to im ply that m anagem ent m ay not have the right to dem ote, even without p r io r w arning, if the situation fu lly ju stifie s it. In such a ca s e , it is b e lieved that the com pany m ust show that the d egree o f p erson a l resp on sib ility would be quite high or that som e p h ysica l o r m ental im parim ent had o ccu rre d w hich d isqu a lified the m an th erea fter.

In the e x e r c is e o f its authority to d iscip lin e em p loy ees , m anagem ent m ust ob serve certa in p ro p r ie t ie s . A rb itra tors have held , fo r exam ple, that d iscip lin e m ay not be im posed w here the em ployee had no warning o f, or cou ld not be expected to have know ledge o f, the con sequen ces o f his w rongfu l action .

In one ca se the grievant was d is ch arged fo r the repeated in fra ction o f the "no sm ok in g" ru le in the plant. The union argued that the ru le was frequen tly v iolated and f ir e hazards w ere not s e r io u s . The facts o f the ca se indicated that the danger was rea l. There was no question o f know ledge o f the ru le ; signs w ere con sp icu ou sly posted , and penalties fo r in fraction w ere posted on the bulletin board suspension fo r the f ir s t two v io la tion s; and d isch a rge fo r the th ird . A la rge num ber o f m en had re ce iv e d penalties fo r f ir s t and second offen ses but the grievant was the f ir s t em ployee to be d isch a rged . A ctu a lly , the grievant had been caught in his fifth v iola tion , having been pena lized fo r the th ird and fourth o ffen ses without being d is ch arged . In upholding the d isch a rge the a r b itra tor stated, "T he ru les have been fo rm a lized and known fo r y ea rs ; they estab lish ed the s u cce ss io n o f penalties fo r s u cce ss iv e v io la tion s; M r. H certa in ly knew what m ight be involved fo r him sin ce his n arrow escape in 1945. I se e , a cco rd in g ly , no b a s is fo r in tervention betw een him and the known co n s e quences o f his own b rea ch es of the ru les . . . "

Lax en forcem en t o f ru les had a bearing on the penalty w here v io la tions w ere f r e quent and unpunished. In one ca se an em p loyee le ft the plant, without p e rm iss io n , to engage in union a ctiv ity in a n eighboring w a re hou se . S ince the proh ib ition against leaving the plant without p e rm iss io n had been en fo r c e d only ca su a lly the a rb itra tor ru led thatDigitized for FRASER


13

a verba l w arning would be m ore appropriate than suspension . D isc ip lin e fo r the im proper union activ ity was held to be appropriate .

Rules need not be fo rm a lly stated and posted if the em ployee is expected to know them becau se o f cu stom ary p ra c t ice . In one of the ca ses rev iew ed , an em ployee refu sed an assignm ent which he con sid ered unjust and asked his forem an fo r his tim e ca rd , indicating he wanted to go hom e. The forem a n tr ied to d issuade him but, fa iling to do so , signed the tim e ca rd and the e m p loyee le ft the shop. He was suspended fo r 2 days when he rep orted fo r w ork the next scheduled w orkday. In his appeal, the e m p loyee indicated that he con sidered the fa ct that the forem an signed his ca rd as p e r m is sion to go hom e. At no tim e did the f o r e man warn him of pen a lties . But the a rb itrator did not con s id er that exp lic it warning o f penalty fo r walking o ff the job was n e c e s sa ry . "C erta in ly cu stom ary p ra ct ice in this m atter . . . estab lish es fo r e v e ry em ployeeat least a fore -k n ow led ge that he does not return to w ork fro m such a w a lk -o ff in good standing. n

A t the sam e tim e it was recogn ized that it m ay be d ifficu lt fo r an em ployee to have knowledge o f an a lleged w ron g-d oin g if p rev iou s p ra ctice had been condoned, unless the em ployee was p ro p e r ly notified . This p rin c ip le was recogn ized in a ca se w here an em ployee who was not aw are o f a new ruling was not penalized fo r the accum ulation of "ban k s" (incentive w ork not turned in^.

M anagem ent^ right to d iscip lin e was further re s tr ic te d , on the basis o f d ecis ion s in the ca se s under rev iew , by the requ irem en t that the penalty im posed m ust be fa ir . The penalty not only m ust b ear a reason ab le r e lationship to the o ffen se , it was held, but m ust be im posed in like m anner upon a ll e m p loyees without fa v o r it ism or d iscr im in ation .

D iscrim in a tion betw een w ork ers was the basis fo r the m itigation of penalty in the ca se of 2 em ployees who had 42 m inutes pay deducted fo r quitting ea rly and w ere su s pended fo r 3 days fo r being away fro m the w ork area without authorization , both p en a lties applying to the sam e p eriod of tim e. At the sam e tim e se v e ra l other em ployees a lso had 42 m inutes pay deducted fo r stop ping w ork b e fore o ffic ia l quitting tim e. The a rb itra tor found that the tim e the penalized em ployees w ere away fro m the job was r e l a tive ly short and ord in a rily would not be n o ticed . "T h e d iffe ren ce betw een the o ffen se of S and S, who dawdled five or ten m inutes

away fro m the w ork a rea , and the other e m p loyees who w ere penalized by a 42 -m inute deduction fo r dawdling on the jo b , is not great enough to ju stify the rather stringent extra penalty. "

A nother a ggrieved em ployee , S, was suspended fo r 6 days fo r fa ls ify in g his daily tim esheet fo r Septem ber 12 by rep ortin g 24 cen ter s ills punched, w hich w ere not punched on that day, although he was w arned on Septem ber 14 that this p ra ctice was a v io la tion o f the ru le s . He was suspended fo r the fa lse rep ort o f Septem ber 12 when he fa iled to r e p ort on his tim esheet fo r Septem ber 18, s ix cen ter s ills w hich he punched that day. The penalty against S*s h elper fo r his fa lse rep ort o f Septem ber 12 was suspended b ecau se on that day he had not been notified that the p ra ctice was a v io la tion o f the ru le s . The a rb itra tor d ecla red that at that tim e S stood in the sam e p osition as the H elper and should th ere fore have been given the sam e tre a tm ent.

Even an em ployee *s past r e c o r d w hile im portant in judging the se v e r ity o f the penalty, does not ju stify d ifferen t treatm ent in the plant than would be given other em p lo y e e s . An em ployee , K , w hose previou s r e c o rd was not good, was penalized by being sent hom e fo r throw ing a cigarette on the f lo o r and then refusing to p ick it up. When K reported to w ork the next m orn in g , he was ca lled into the su perin ten den ts o ffice and asked to p ro m ise that if again caught th row ing ciga rettes on the f lo o r he would p ick them up if o rd ered to do s o . K said he would have to think it over and was again sent hom e. The a rb itra tor stated that K was ju stified in fee lin g that he had been singled out fo r sp e cia l treatm ent. "H e presu m ab ly paid the co n sequence o f his past im p ro p r ie t ie s . He is entitled to the sam e treatm ent h en ceforth as a ll other em p loy ees, no m o re , no le s s . "

Standards o f com pany a dm in istra tion . The right of m anagem ent to set the standards fo r adm in istration o f the business was e x p re ss ly stated in A rt ic le XIII o f the con tracts (p. 11 ) and was re itera ted by the a rb itra to rs . M anagem ent set sa fety ru les fo r the p rotection o f w ork ers and p rop erty and estab lished other ru les pertain ing to p ro d u c tion . These w ere se ld om questioned by em p lo y e e s , unless they w ere involved in in fra c tion s. Com pany ru les and p o lic ie s a ffectin g em ployees m ust be m ade known to the e m p lo y e e s , as m entioned e a r lie r . Safety ru les w ere gen era lly posted and no question o f know ledge o f the ru les was o rd in a rily ra ised .Digitized for FRASER


14

Managements right to schedule overtime to m eet an em ergency snow situation was accepted by the arbitrator without question. D isciplinary action against an employee who refused to accept overtim e in the snow em ergency was upheld. In another case , where an employee refused to load shells, when his regular job was tied up because of a breakdown, the arbitrator stated that the company had the right to assign workers to other tasks.

Where the supervisor tacitly a c cepted working arrangements among the men, other than those form ally set by management, he must make proper allowance for such team codes in disciplinary actions, it was held. In one case, one of the men was operating a "charge car, " although his job was a d ifferent one. This was an infraction of the safety ru les, but one which had been tolerated in the interest of practica l working arrangem ents. A further violation of the rules was caused by perm itting the charge car to m ove unattended. The arbitrator considered that the second practice deserved a penalty but since the company had tolerated the first infraction of rules, the penalty im posed was considered too severe.

Finally, company orders had to be reasonable if discipline for violation was to be upheld. An arbitrator held that a superintendent^ action in canceling an em ployee^ vacation 2 days before it becam e effective was unreasonable when the request had been made several months previously. Suspension of 2 days when the employee did not show up fo r work at the date of his scheduled vacation was reversed .

Assignment to appropriate jo b s . The com panyfs right to assign w orkers to appropriate jobs , im plied in A rticle XIII o f the agreem ents, must be exercised in a fa ir and nondiscrim inatory manner. Several of the Bethlehem arbitration cases indicated such lim itation on this prerogative of management.

In the case of an employee who re fused an assignment to load shells, which was not his regular job , the arbitrator stated that the right to assign workers is "lim ited on the one hand by the factor that the company may not, under co lor of it, violate any provision of the Agreem ent, nor, on the other hand, use it for discrim inatory or other unfair p u rp ose ."

In the case of five cranemen who w ere penalized for refusing to "make a lift, " the arbitrator felt that the company was unfa ir . The incident arose from the fact that

the operator on a certain crane on the "3 - to -1 1 " shift had been taken off the job and another em ployee on that shift had refused to make the lift. Each of the crane operators on the " l l - t o - 7 " shift a lso refused to make the lift, claim ing that his immediate job should take precedence. Each man, as a consequence, was sent hom e. A fter conferring with the shop steward, however, each operator offered to do the job . In the m eantime the lift had been rem oved by hand. The arbitrator felt that management had created an issue out of proportion to the seriousness of the situation. f,Wise management would never have made an issue over a load so light that two or three apprentices w ere able to m ove it by hand, particularly in view of the fact that the Cranemen in question were apparently working on an em ergency job . To suspend all of a crew for the m ajor part of a turn because each refused to m ove a single lift of such insignificance certainly gives the appearance that management was going out of its way looking fo r trouble. " The penalty was cut in half.

In a somewhat sim ilar case , an em ployee refused to assist an E lectrica l R epairman fixing the m otor on the em ployeels edge planer. He was penalized 1 day*s w ork for going home after refusing the assignm ent. The em ployee claim ed that he was afraid of electricity and thought his job was going to be changed. The forem an had made no effort to determine the reason for the em ployee^ refusal to perform what he (the forem an) con sidered a reasonable assignm ent. In the a rb itra tor^ view, both parties w ere at fault; he held that the forem an should have made an effort to determ ine why the assignment was refused.

E m ployees1 Rights and Responsibilities

An em ployee^ rights a re , of course , the converse of the com panyfs obligations. He has a right to be forewarned of company standards and penalties. He has a right to be treated like other em ployees, and to be treated fa irly . While the contracts did not specifica lly mention fair and im partial treatment, the arbitrators* decisions have been based on generally recognized princip les of equity.

F or instance, in one case the g r iev - ant claim ed that the way he had been d is c iplined constituted double penalty. There was no question that a double penalty could not be im posed. The question was whether a double penalty had actually been levied. The facts were established as follow s:


15

Two em ployees received a 1-day d is ciplinary suspension for infraction of the company rules, and w ere told not to report for work the following day which was Thursday. It rained that day, and all em ployees in the shop w ere sent home when they r e ported for work. On the following day, all em ployees, including the two grievants, r e ported to work and worked all day. During the day the forem an inform ed all the em ployees except the two grievants that they would be perm itted to work Saturday to make up the day lost because of rain on Thursday.

The union contended that since the em ployees had already been penalized by having to stay away on Thursday, denial of work on Saturday constituted a double penalty. The company asserted that the grievants did not, in fact, serve the 1-day suspension which management had intended for their infraction. The arbitrator agreed with the company. "T o say that this particular Thursday, as such and irrespective of whether there be work on that day, was the penalty day is far too strained and technical an answer. The true sp irit, purpose and understanding of the parties was rather that the grievants be denied 1 dayfs work, Thursday, if there be work on that day, or if there be none, then another day. That was im plied, if not expressed, in the forem an^ instructions to the grievants that they not report for w ork on that Thursday. One day*s loss of w ork was the intended penalty. And until the grievants did serve that penalty by incurring a 1-day loss of w ork, it cannot, in truth, be said that they satisfied that penalty. "

In general the discussion in the p re vious section which relates to management responsibilities in em ployee discipline is a lso applicable to employees* rights in the m atter. In addition, the subject of freedom of speech as an em ployee right deserves mention. When appropriately exercised , it was held, freedom of speech may not be restricted by the em p loyer. In one case an em ployee was penalized for saying to the superintendent that he was not required to work overtim e. The arbitrator reversed the company penalty saying, "The expression of his views in the superintendent*s o ffice , no matter how e r roneous those views m ay have been, can hardly be considered a punishable offense. "

That liberty of speech in the plant may not be abused, how ever, has been em phatically held by arbitrators in several other ca ses . In one case , an employee was d is charged by making him self obnoxious to his fellow w orkers by persistently pressing "anti- relig ious, an ti-c ler ica l and his econom ic and

political views upon the em ployees in the department to the point where a highly explosive and dangerous condition prevailed th e re ." The arbitrator*s "only interest and concern h ere ," he said, "is as to the effect which the vocal espousal and urgence of these opinions and beliefs may have had upon the em ployees working with M, their ability to con tinue to work safely, undisturbed and with full peace of mind, and for Management*s part, its ability to continue to carry out its obligations to maintain safe and proper working conditions and efficient operations. . . .

"If his course o f conduct was not a calculated pattern of action intentionally aimed to disrupt the peace, harmony and e fficiency in the department, it is , to say the least, a manifestation of a com plete and utter d isregard of the rights of his co -w ork ers and of his em ployer. . . . It is sheer p re sumptuousness on M*s part to seek shelter in his constitutional right of free sp eech ."

Sim ilarly, no insubordination, interference with the conduct of the business, or slowdown of production may be encouraged by em ployees, and such action cannot be justified under cover of freedom of speech.

The worker*s responsibility with r e spect to discipline is , o f cou rse , to avoid any action which may be the subject fo r d is cipline. He must observe the recognized rules of plant behavior and must perform his job with due care and appropriate com petence.

The em ployees obligation to perform his job properly was c learly illustrated in the case where an em ployee was charged with intentional slow and poor w ork. His perform ance on the day in question was far below that on previous days. He had been penalized for insubordination the previous day, and the company alleged that he was intentionally doing poor w ork because of ill-w ill . The arbitrator re jected the employee*s excuses for the deterioration in his work and could find no valid reason for it.

In another case , an em ployee, when observed quitting early, used abusive language when inform ed of the time ru les. He was later found reading com ic books and not attending his job and after that was found sleeping on his job . He had previously been reprimanded fo r quitting early , and now was suspended fo r 3 days. In the opinion of the arbitrator, the em ployee "definitely showed a predisposition to d isregard the rule and an intention of not com plying with it. His d is ciplinary suspension cannot, therefore, be disturbed. "Digitized for FRASER


16

The use of abusive language in general was im proper use of personal freedom and justified a penalty, the arbitrators have held. In the case of an employee who was suspended from w ork for 1 week for the use o f abusive language in an argument with the forem an, the arbitrator stated, "Except when provocation is so severe as to justify the waiving of individual responsibility, the use o f abusive language of such a personal nature by any one, as was admitted in this case , is difficult to excuse. Any other conclusion would lead only to a breakdown in shop d is cipline and ignoring the grievance procedure."

It was a basic requirem ent that an em ployee should use the grievance procedure of the contract to protest when he feels that he has been subjected to unjust discipline. He must not take action in his own way, such as walking off the job . An em ployee who was a chronic absentee was demoted and then stayed away from his job for 2 weeks. When he returned he pleaded for his old job and was shown leniency by being reinstated. Subsequently, he reverted to his old practice of absenteeism . The umpire could find no legitimate reason for the em ployee^ being away from his job so frequently. The absence of 2 weeks in protest against his demotion was considered by the arbitrator to be com pletely indefensible. "It was a matter strictly of his own doing. If C felt his demotion was unjustified, his proper course of action was to file a grievance and not leave his job . The purpose of the grievance procedure of the Agreem ent was to avoid the very thing that C did h e r e ."

Union R esponsibilities

Union responsibilities with regard to m atters of discipline are generally those which relate to union activity in the plant or strike activity in violation of the contract. Union activity must not interfere with production. As company em ployees, union officers were required not only to observe contract p ro visions relating to prohibition of strikes but to take affirm ative action to avoid such stoppages. Union officia ls guilty of encouraging illegal strikes may a lso be subject to union discipline, but this was an internal union m atter outside o f the authority or jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

A rbitrators have, on a number of occasion s, pointed out the responsibility of the union to see that the grievance procedure is used and not the illegal strike. A "sym pathetic" walkout was engaged in by the em ployees of a department over what they con sidered to be an unfair d iscip linary action

involving a fellow w orker. The arb itra tor^ comment was to the effect that "such action can only serve to tear down the very griev ance m achinery of the Agreem ent. If em ployees are to resort to self-help or pressure through Sym pathy1 walkouts, what purpose and respect can there be had for the griev ance m achinery including arbitration, a ll of which the company and union carefu lly worked out in the Agreem ent? Sound labor relations under the Agreem ent requires em ployee se lf- control and their full adherence to the peaceful and orderly disposition of their grievance through the processing of it under the g riev ance steps of the A greem en t."

A rticle XVII of the agreem ents b e tween Bethlehem and the union provided that the company may suspend and later discharge any em ployee who shall

(a) engage in or in any way encourage or sanction any strike or other action which shall in terrupt or interfere with work or production at any of the Plants or Works or

(b) prevent or attempt to prevent the a ccess of Em ployees to any of the Plants or W orks.

M ost of the cases of discipline for union activity involved union o ffic ia ls . These em ployees, the company has apparently felt, and the arbitrators have expressly stated, have a duty to take positive action where the likelihood of a work stoppage has developed. While participation in an illegal work stoppage by the rank and file union m em ber was generally overlooked by the company, the union officia ls taking a leading part have frequently been subject to discipline.

In an early case involving the d is charge o f G, an Assistant Shop Steward, the arbitrator concluded on the basis of his evaluation of the evidence that G had encouraged and sanctioned a work stoppage in violation of the agreem ent, although it was not established that he had initiated or engaged in it. The union argued that this provision of the agreem ent must be read in conjunction with one which prohibited the management from exercising its disciplinary pow ers in such a manner as to discrim inate against any em ployee because of his lawful activity on be half of the union. To this the arbitrator r e plied that a w ork stoppage was not a lawful activity within the meaning of the contract.Digitized for FRASER


17

The arbitrator elabo