Document MJNvMLmEG0G04kb5q3ba36L7y

- :0 ... .1^- ;< < t ` . ' v'lV n, v . \ . : `ja ti'j o ' tiT.` r f.:> i' _'V` - r, s'r >' f ` VO J. s H .t-h i' t.1 '.'if 'o ' v> iC 1 ,, * > iod i . r. * rr>, .'-i, j. rr ,j*` * .'>.* /-- if **; c. >.: 'PD. crt. S'-nZli. 6. t.Si- c.`-**.i t. r-ti jj.fi v.*lI 1 " F r,;..;;', 4 '!' Lf.-l v . -'A. M f PH if. _ \c* `1. H ruAf,LL`i r,,.v<on Tc`.t: ' *' u Dom/mmo : Fmv?;: JFOR;-".t-,f7LV Hob`3 fbCCOFH ICE'. fr, MlUXR) ioTM rices? im Mo.'iu-M'-fn circle a r-c^-nr .M7 -or, t- - v> ; I MO I AMADOUS A 6EOA March 23, 19 73 ja"i;s a if.fiv .^.i. ftoas.'n d. f'c'.cr':) i^i) f-OC.r^ C"l>:..iArrt i fBitFc,\'rC*r. Ar., tt>,ofi.'lU`i .I"'*rr> C- W'Zl. \v. 6 TE, *(*-fI < : "j, <3Af<t f*.. MAC' ' C,, .,;*! i-i1; s^1*. r . n, c n v.r ;f 'S'HUn km t.r r* LA fc * s *- Jl',. L ,,i,;. O \7> O *. 'H Jl.,'1 ?t r. p r f, cm C' a j i f> Lfr> c, JAS'.Si Fi?rtq"D- *>"*. si'-if V,1 5T ^ MAM', a?j j, tc '.vr* JAM$ t. K t tjMASniN J, ylk bjl WRlHC/HJAfHm'l < E,L. rAl7>i ;frt.|Pi Mi*. Martin M. Licbman Mona on to Company SCO North Lindberg Boulevard St. Louie, Mi s a our.i. 6 3.166 Re : Dear Mr. Liebman: Mo n s an to Corap a. n y S p r i n cj field P1 a n t Elimination of Solvent Operator The following letter is in response to your inquiry of March 14, 1973, regarding the "Solvent Operator Reduction Grievance" which was filed on April 2, 1972, at the Springfield Plant. irt_ is our opinion that this grievance lacks merit and will be denied if taken to arbitration. I. Background The grievance concerns the kettle cleaning function in the Polyvinyl Chloride Department. Prior to 1964, kettles were clean ed after each use with MEK solvent which was recovered within the cleaned kettle. Regular Kettle Operators performed this function. in 1964 a separate "recovery still" was added, and the proce dure was changed. The production kettles were cleaned only after eight to ten cycles. They were then taken out of production, fill ed with THF solvent and "stewed" for eight hours. The solvent was recovered in the separate "recovery still," which was located at a physically remote location from the kettle floor. This new procedure required the employment of eight "Solvent Operators," a new occupation, who worked in crews of two. One operator per crew conducted the stewing process, while the other operated the "recovery still." Regular Kettle Operators had noth ing to do with either function while the kettle was being cleaned. RSV0025882 rV.'.r' l' i yi J,i ,fomm Mons; ante O: ip:-; 300 Morl.b Lind q Lou.I cv a, j1 cl dt,, Lome, Mir ou)' C 316 0 -2 March 23 19 7 3 Early an 19 72 a new ope a. I: :i Oi i w a s a d o] :> tod, a J; t e r a d c t a i 3. a a study. first, the keif I os v ire c.leanod after each cycle by the regular Kettle Op ere. tors. Second, use of the "recovery s dieconLa need and one of the ex is ting production Mettles w as converted into a. recovery kettle, and v;es automated so that re cover functions could be carried out c<n the kettle floor. Thus o Chang cost the Company about $329,000. Effective April 2, 1972, the eight Solvent Operators taken off the job. In effect, the Company eliminated thi tion, by reducing the number of employees in it to zero. tion has given rise to the present grievance. were occupaTM This ac 1I, The Gr iev anc:e The grievance complains of the Company's violation of "the contract and past practices and procedures by removing all em ployees from and abolishing the dob Classification and occupcition of Solvent Operator, under Schedule 2." The issue, therefore, is whether the Company violated the contract (Sections 2 and 3 of Article III) by discontinuing staffing of the Solvent Operator classification due to changes in equipment and the process involved. The Company's action also raises potential questions concern ing the seniority rights of the displaced Solvent Operators (under Article IX), and the proper evaluation of the Kettle Operator oc cupation as changed by the incorporation of the cleaning function into that job. (Section 2, Article III) bJe_haye_as3uiaed_ for pur poses ..of. .thisletter that these issues have not presently been raised. ................. ....... '.............."..... ......... III. The Company's Position A. The contract does not restrlet the Company's right to change or eliminate an occupation. There has been an extremely large number oi arbitration awards on the subject of elimination or combination of jobs due to automation or technological change. (The best key number reference in LA-CDI is 117.334; the CDI cover ing volumes 41 through 50 includes 68 such "'awards";) bi- As a general rule, the employer may eliminate a job unless the contract expressly states otherwise . ijs- However , most contracts which mention or incorporate a list of job"" classifications are held to require the employer to continue such classification un less the underlying job content is changed or eliminated. ^ 'where a change in equipment or incorporation of a new process res uli a n RSV0025883 .'i'". Martin M. I, i cabman Monsanto Company too Perth Lindherg Boulevard S t, Lo u i s . jh i s s o ur i 6 3.16 G Hare eh 23 , 10 7 3 the obsolescence of a pa rt i <tj lar ;i ob, i t cai] the con trad: c ry clou riy rro tor. Gs the job. no ease a wru dieting u i s h }->et\:r.en reducing eliminate* n.g job,t fti! eiinunatca unies: We have discovere-lei of Ar ti ole JIII provides that txons should remain so classified during the contract term, sub ject to Section 3. Section 3 provides for a mechunism to evaluate rates "if a new occupation is established or it there is a change in an existing occupation." Unquestionably the Company has the right to "change" occuj.mti ons; the narrower question then becomes whether the. right to "change" .includes the right to eliminate. Arbitrator Robert\Howlott1 faced this question squarely in Morton Salt Co., 44 LA 33 (1965). The contract provided that the Company could "change the work content of any. . .classification, (or). . .create new classifications." The Company eliminated one job, placing those duties in another classification. The Arbitra tor held that: Management's right to change the work con i' tent of a classification carries with it the I power, under some circumstances, to eliminate all work in another classification, and thus effectively to eliminate that classification even though it might remain in the table of job classifications until the end of the coni, tract. The Arbitrator held that the Company may eliminate a job if it has a "reasonable basis" to do so, arising from reduction in the work content of the eliminated job. However, he added that: i Management is not required to wait until the work declines to 50% or less. . .before deciding that a combination of jobs will bene fit operations. . . (as long as) there are some 'economical or efficient benefits' which are expected to be effected. Similarly in Sewanee Silica Co., 47 LA 282 (Greene, Arbitra tor) (1966) the contract provided the existing classification "will remain in effect," but provided also for rate adjustments in the event of a "change in operations." The Arbitrator held that the elimination of three classifications and the creation of a new classification, resulting from rearrangements of the physical RSV0025884 Mr. barlb n i'h Liebman Mo;; .= un to Coj t, > ant GOO or to 1 a n cue v c; non lev nr d S t. iOU !h S f j i.i S 3 o c:\. i 6 .nr, -4 iMLi X jT C1 J. it 3 f 19 7 3 . t f \v ':i s n at & v.i o 'J a t :i. Oil of ;.I io have 11 ewj. c: r.', re c oc;n iced tv: co n tr act. loy er1s Many righ u1. other A tbi C.L iJ *" to cljh.lin a XL O G ;las si fxc ci `b i on who. Til a chang;j i n j ob content h as occur r G d , ^ 0'hus , j i: em s cl g r tiiat t] io Co:mpu ny has a r :U-ht to ell mi n at :cupn t.. i o n UIl l th c c xis ti nef c o n 1>C- taC t due to t'cchnolog i c a 1 This interpretation is cons i s tout,with she r ef crenta to "presently existing occuuabions " in Section y. Article ITp, a contrairg 1 hterpretstion ivoulo be inconsistent with see fj. on's 2 and 3 of Article I which state the purpose of the parties to be attain ment of "maximum productivity," through "technological progress." B ._____The__ Cornu any did not vlo3 ate the contract_in this _i >stance. In the present case, a basic change in engineering and procedure has occurred: 1. Cleaning. Kettles are now cleaned for a short period after each cycle, which is a traditional duty associated with bVC Kettle Operators. Kettle Operators in other departments also are. primarily responsible for cleaning of their assigned Kettles. The Solvent Operator was only involved in eight hour cleaning after eight to ten cycles while the kettle was "off-line," which required monitoring, valving, flushing, manual cleaning, and other duties, presumably not part of the current cleaning process. 2. Recovery. An isolated special "recovery still" has been replaced with a more automated vessel which presumably elimi nates many of the duties cf the Solvent Operator such as adding inhibitor and suspending agent, manual cleaning, controlling tem perature and pressure, switching, etc. Valving and inventoring of the TKF storage tanks is apparently no longer necessary. WWW. It'-'** j------` In preparation of this case for arbitration a more comprehensive list of specific duties, formerly performed by Solvent Opera- j tors, which are now either eliminated or simplified can be prei pared. However, this brief analysis indicates that a significant 'change in job content of the Solvent Operator occupation has oc curred, which gives the Company "reasonable basis" on which to eliminate the Solvent Operator occupation, and to combine the residual duties with the duties of Kettle Operator. C. The Company has acted in accordance with Past Practice. There appear to be at least three examples of the elimination of an occupation which have occurred in the past apparently without a grievance having been filed: 1. Blender Lead Operator, June 7, 1971. RSVQ025885 M~rc:!n i-j. Liebmari i '0: is an to Comp any 300 "ori;h Liodberg Boulevard B1. Lo \ i i s ! M i s s o u r i 6 3 X 6 6 5 March 2 3, ID 73 2, Extender Lead Operator, Jure 7, IS) 7.1 3. Assistant Packaging Operator, June 4, ]971. in ad.Jj.tion a prior arhitratjon award is mentioned .in the cjri vfuicij summar (by Proiessor Korefcz in. 1.9 6 4 l p.4) which. lie Id the the Company may elect not to fill a vnean cy, in effect eliwi-nating a ;j ob. Depending on the negotiating history subsequent to 1964, this award could be very helpful. We have not. received enough, information on the past practice or prior award to discuss more fully the use of each factor in the upcoming arbitration, except, to note that each constitutes a valu able potential supplement to the caoe-in-chief. We hope this letter will be helpful in your preparation of this case. We have enjoyed delving into this problem, which must be a fundamental and recurrent problem for you plant-wide. Mr, Starr is certainly to be complemented fox' his excellent and succinct summary of this grievance. Y o/tfx!s t r u 1 y , /' 3 ~J Enclosure ASl. Rich aid E. Parker NOTES: 1. "(T)he Company may properly exercise judgment and discre tion in discontinuing work customarily performed bv particular job classifications or departments. . . . Management may decide to eliminate established work activities, or change its operating procedures and production methods." Marble Cliff Quarries Co., 47 LA 396 , 403 (Dworkin, Arbitrator) (1966). See also, U.S. Steel Corp., 41 LA 300 (Duff, Arbitrator) (1963); 41 LA S84 (Ziltrock, Arbitrator)(1963); 47 LA 1092 (Florey, Arbitrator)(1966); National Dairy Products Corp., 41 LA 506 (Altieri, Arbitrator)(1963); Phoenix Closures Inc., 49 LA 874 (Sembower, Arbitrator)(1967). See generally, Elkouri and Elkouri, How Arbitration 314-16, footnotes*"! 16-18 (Rev. Ed. 1960). (Arb i t r a t o r S e r b o vr r in Phoenix Closures Inc., supra, refers to Tep1e, Contract Prorisions Affecting Job Elimination, 17 West. Res. L. Rev. 1253 (1956) RSV0025886 Lonsauto Company 00 dort.h Lindbcrq Boulevard ou, ,Ij c>u r o , "l s s on ri 6 J1 C> c> ... f, Lurch which v:e have not fc a h o. 1 p f u 1,) 3;1 o r Arbitrator Doyle * 2 A ( 13 6 7) . yat had an opportunity to read, but feel might ?. detailed revj.-ev of arbitral authority see award in Omaha. Cold Storage Terminal, 4 3 LA 2. rlintkote C.o,; 41 LA 120 (Sehedlor, /arbitrator) (1963); Lone. Star Cement Corp., 41 LA 11G1 (Dvorkin, Arbitrator) (.196.3) ; Triangle Conduit, 43 LA 1057 (Kicl1ols, Arbitrator) (13 6 4) ,, 3. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co Arbitrator) {1964) ; Internationa.! Paper Co, Arbi tr at or) (1964); Beth 1 eh era Steel Co,, 43 trator)(1965). , 43 LA 353 (Volz, 4 3 J.j.A j. 11S (L ] a t s I; a .1. j, , LA 770 (Barrett, Arbi... 4. In addition to the cases cited at footnote 3, supra., see; Rheemjtffg. Co,, 46 LA 1027, (1030 (Block, Arbitrator) (1966) ("For this Arbitrator to find the existence of a manning requirement that fails to take into account cietual production needs, the language .relied upon would have to spell out this intentionaln. unmlst.akeable terms . ") (Emphasis ` supplied) See elTso~, Ge'neraT American Transportation Corp,, 44 LA 359 (Abrahams, Arbitrator) (19 6 5) . RSV0025887