Labor issues and conflict management

Arbitration Case #3

In the Matter of Arbitration between

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (3M)

–and–

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

International Union, Local 6 –75

The Issue The parties stipulated the issue in this case as follows:

Has the company violated the collective bargaining agreement by following a practice of not

using bargaining unit employees to repair personal computers?

The Facts This grievance was brought by the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, Local

6–75 on behalf of the grievant, Terry Begley, and members of the bargaining unit. The grievant is

a systems control technician employed by the Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (3M), and

the union is his sole representative.

The union and the company are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. Article 2.01 in the

agreement recognizes the union as the exclusive bargaining agent for all hourly paid employees

designated in the bargaining unit. The unit includes all production and maintenance employees,

including service control technicians. Furthermore, Article 8.17(c) provides that “Supervisory and

other salaried employees will not perform the work of hourly production employees except in cases

of emergency.” The union argues that the company has violated the contract by giving to salaried

employees bargaining unit work that should have been performed by service control technicians.

Two years ago the company purchased 4,000 desktop personal computers. Salaried repair

technicians, who are not members of the bargaining unit, were given the responsibility for

repairing those personal computers. The company claims that this assignment is a logical extension

of its longstanding practice of having salaried repair technicians repair all of the company’s office

equipment.

The union disagrees and notes that systems control technicians, who are members of the

bargaining unit, have historically repaired and maintained equipment associated with the operation,

maintenance, and process control of the manufacturing processes. Because this has included

working regularly with computers, the introduction of personal computers simply expanded the

work that should have been made available to members of the bargaining unit. Furthermore, the

union argues that denying service control technicians this work threatens their job security, for as

computerization becomes more prevalent, bargaining unit members will be denied the opportunity

to keep pace with changing technology. Therefore, the union submits that the company should be

directed to assign the work of repairing and maintaining personal computers and ancillary

equipment to the systems control technicians.

The Union’s Argument The evidence that members of the bargaining unit are qualified to perform the work in question is

compelling. The union presented evidence that service control technicians have extensive training,

both to obtain their positions and under a continuing on-the-job training program. Part of that

continued training includes work with computers.

Personal computers are electronic devices that serve a purpose similar to the equipment for

which service control technicians have always been responsible. Furthermore, bargaining unit

members are qualified to service personal computers.

The union rejects the company’s argument that the contested work is not bargaining unit work

because it involves office rather than production equipment. The evidence shows that bargaining

unit members already work extensively in offices, where they perform a variety of tasks in

nonproduction areas. For example, service control technicians are responsible for lighting, for the

entire heating and cooling system, and for the physical furniture.

The company claims that bargaining unit members cannot work on personal computers because

they might gain access to confidential information. Service control technicians, however, are

already entering the premises for other reasons; there is no reason to suspect their work with

personal computers.

Finally, the union submits that service control technicians must be given the opportunity to grow

with their craft. Assigning the repair and maintenance of personal computers and ancillary

equipment to service control technicians would be a logical extension of work that they are

presently performing and for which they are well qualified. Denying them that right threatens to

render them obsolete in the future operations of 3M.

The Company’s Argument The company submits that by this grievance the union seeks to gain for bargaining unit members

work that is not rightfully theirs. First, the company argues that the contract does not prohibit the

assignment of this work to non-bargaining unit members; rather, it expressly provides this right to

the company in Article 4, the Management Rights clause. Thus, the contract clearly supports

management’s actions in this case.

Second, the company submits that the contested work is properly assigned to non -bargaining

unit, salaried employees. The company has never asked or directed office equipment repair

workers to perform bargaining unit work, and service control technicians have never been

responsible for repairing desktop personal computers. The salaried persons who presently perform

this work are highly skilled in a number of areas for which bargaining unit members are limited

by experience and training. They are cross-trained with respect to both types of equipment and

product lines. Service control technicians are not expected to have that expertise. Furthermore, the

nature of the contested work makes it ill-suited for assignment to bargaining unit members. The

union should not be in a position to gain access to information that relates directly to the

management of the company.

Finally, the company is puzzled that the union is alarmed at the possibility that technology may

someday eliminate the position of service control technician, when it is technology that created

that position in the first place. The company notes that no service control technician has been laid

off or had hours reduced as the result of the introduction of personal computers at 3M. In fact, the

position of service control technician is one of the more secure jobs at the company.

Questions for Discussion

1. If you were the arbitrator, what would you decide in this case?

2. What responsibilities should the company have to provide career opportunities to workers like

service control technicians who are the highest paid members of the bargaining unit?

3. If a company offers training and promotional opportunities to jobs outside of the bargaining unit,

should workers have the opportunity to carry over their union membership and coverage under

collective bargaining? What would our labor law say in this case? What would good human

resource management practice suggest?

4. How should a company and a union handle cases like this? Is arbitration the best option? If you

were the arbitrator in this case, what alternative ways might you suggest for handling such issues

in the future?