FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE

In the Matter of the Arbitration between FMCS No. 88-03621

Grievance No. 87-38
LOCAL 1151 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,
Union,

and

PEABODY GALION DIVISION OF

PEABODY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
Company.
____________________________________________/

OPINION OF THE ARBITRATOR

March 2, 1988

After a Hearing Held February 16, 1988

In Galion, Ohio

For the Union: For the Company:

Raymond Briggs M.H. Sheffer

Business Representative Vice President-Administration
District Lodge 59 Peabody Galion
I.A.M.&A.W. - AFL-CIO 500 Sherman Street
P.O. Box 681 P. O. Box 607
Galion, Ohio 44833 Galion, Ohio 44833-0607
 The issue presented in this arbitration is the Company's right to make

temporary work assignments when employees are on layoff, under the terms of

the collective bargaining agreement with the Union, dated June 12, 1985 and

entered into evidence as JX 1 ("CBA"). The issue is purely one of contract

interpretation and, because of the plain language of the CBA, must be resolved

in favor of the Company. The facts essentially are undisputed; it is only their

significance under the terms of the CBA which is at issue.

The Company builds garbage trucks in its Galion, Ohio plant, where it

employs two classifications of welders, Welder B (UX 2) and Pressure Welder

(UX 1). The former encompasses general welding, while the latter includes only

specialty welding, primarily on oil tanks. Pressure Welder is the higher job

classification.

In May of 1987, a Pressure Welder, Arthur Barker (CX 5), was asked to

work on a new job entitled, "Dekalb Paper Box Assembly" (CX 2). A "paper

box" is a large, rectangular trash container made of sheet metal. The job was

relatively complicated and required some initial assistance from the Engineering

Department, but the Company admits that the work could have be done by an

|employee in the Welder B classification. Indeed, a Welder B named Arnold

Reynolds previously had done work on a "Paper Box Weldment" (CX 1), which

was much simpler than the Dekalb box. Mr. Barker worked on the Dekalb job

2
on May 21, 22 and 26, 1987, for a total of 17 hours (CX 4), apparently without

Union objection. Although there was some intimation at the hearing that key

Union officials were out ill or on vacation at the time, this fact was never

established.

During the week of September 21, 1987, the Company gave the Union

notice of the impending layoff of Welder Bs, to begin on Friday of that week.

See CBA, p 58 and p 25, Par 130. The very next week, the Company obtained

another order for the Dekalb box (CX 2). Because Welder Bs were laid off and

because Mr. Barker had previous experience with the Dekalb box, the Company

again requested that he accept a temporary assignment, and he did so. This time,

Mr. Barker worked on the Dekalb box on September 30, October 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,

9, 16 and 19, 1987, for a total of 65 hours (CX 3). On October 5, 1987, the

Union filed a grievance seeking to halt temporary assignments while Welder Bs

were on layoff (JX 2).

Although the Union's complaint may seem quite understandable, "[t]he

Arbitrator shall have no authority to amend this Agreement and shall consider

only the issues submitted to him for determination." CBA, p 8, Par 31. On page

29, the CBA expressly provides:

(152) L. An employee requested to transfer temporarily out of either a

department or classification on shift, may accept or decline
transfer. In the event employees choose not to transfer, then the
least senior qualified employee on shift in a classification and

3
 department must accept and shall be transferred. Any such transfer
of an employee shall be limited to fifteen (15) working days. An
employee so transferred shall I be paid for the time transferred
based on one of the following:

(153) 1. His average straight time hourly earnings established for

vacation and holiday purposes, or

(154) 2. His classified hourly rate or the hourly rate of the classification
to which he is transferred, whichever of these two is higher.

There are no restrictions whatsoever on temporary assignments, save those just

quoted; in particular, the CBA in no way restricts them during periods of layoff.

See also pp 26-27, Par 142.

The Union contends that Mr. Barker's work assignment lasted 20 days

(Sept. 30 - Oct. 19) and thereby violated the CBA. However, the CBA clearly

states that "[a]ny such transfer of an employee shall be limited to fifteen (15)

working days" (emphasis supplied). In the period Sept. 30 - Oct. 19, 1987, there

were only 14 working days and Mr. Barker worked on the Dekalb box on only

10 of those days for a total of 65 hours. Thus, however the fifteen-day limitation

is to be measured, Mr. Barker was within the contractual limit.

The Union urges the applicability of CBA, p 31, Par 158:

Should the Company physically relocate a job or work assignment within

a job classification within its Galion Plant facilities, without changing the
job's content, the incumbent employee shall move with the job.

In this matter, there was no "incumbent employee" within the Welder B job

classification because the work on the Dekalb box arose while the Welder Bs

4
were on layoff. Moreover, the work assignment was not "relocated"; rather, the

parts initially were taken to Mr. Barker's workbench and the entire job

performed by him there. The governing provision is Par 152, not Par 158.

Based upon the express language of the CBA, the Company's action must

be sustained and the grievance denied. Whether the Company's action was "fair"

or "unfair" is some broader sense, is not for the arbitrator to decide.

DATED: March 2, 1988 ___________________

E. Frank Cornelius

5
6