BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
CARPENTERS' LOCAL NO. 2190
MARSHALL ERDMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
(Grievance of Bill Klubertanz)
Mr. Michael Kenny,
Representative, Local No. 2190, Midwest Council of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, on behalf of the Union.
Melli, Walker, Pease & Ruhly, S.C., Attorneys at Law, by Mr. Thomas R.
Crone, on behalf of the
Carpenters' Local No. 2190, Midwest Council of the United Brotherhood of
Joiners of America, hereinafter the Union, requested that the Wisconsin Employment
Commission appoint a staff arbitrator to hear and decide the instant dispute between the
Marshall Erdman & Associates, Inc., hereinafter the Employer, in accordance with the
arbitration procedures contained in the parties' labor agreement. The Employer subsequently
concurred in the request and the undersigned, David E. Shaw, of the Commission's staff,
designated to arbitrate in the dispute. A hearing was held before the undersigned on January
in Madison, Wisconsin. There was no stenographic transcript made of the hearing and the
waived argument in the matter. Based upon the evidence, the undersigned makes and issues
The parties could not agree on a statement of the issue and have agreed the
frame the issue to be decided.
The Union offered the following statement of the issue:
Should Bill Klubertanz be awarded the BP-155 job?
The Employer proposed the following statement:
Did the Company violate Article VI, Sec. 1, when it selected Brett
Anderson for the position
of BP-155 CNC Router Operator over the Grievant?
The undersigned concludes that the Employer's statement of the issue more accurately sets
forth the issue to be decided.
The parties' Agreement contains the following relevant provision:
ARTICLE VI OPERATING PROCEDURES
Section 1 Job Postings
All new jobs and vacant
jobs will be posted on the company's bulletin boards for a minimum
of three working days. If a successful bidder is selected, the Company will notify that
bidder within five (5) working days. The company will place the successful bidder on the
job as soon
as reasonably possible.
In those instances where employees are considered equal on the basis of
an employee's work
record, skill, job experience, ability to do the work, length of service will generally be
awarding new jobs and transfers.
. . .
The Employer is located in Waunakee, Wisconsin and manufactures contemporary
for offices and closet systems. The Union is the recognized exclusive bargaining
all employes of the Employer at its Waunakee plant exclusive of management personnel,
employes, salesmen and supervisors not performing work covered by the parties' bargaining
For the past eight years, James Scheff has been the Employer's Vice-President of
Manufacturing and his duties include being plant manager and the overall operation of the
factory. Since October of 1992, David Lynch has been the Employer's Manager of the
Department at the Waunakee plant.
William Klubertanz, hereinafter the Grievant, has been employed at the Employer's
plant for approximately 20 years and for approximately the last 15 years has been a "Class
machine operator in the Machining Department. Prior to being a Class A machine operator,
Grievant was a machine operator at a lower classification.
The parties have negotiated wage classifications in the Machining Department beginning
Class AA which are drill operators, Class A, who are machine operators first class, Class B,
includes machine operator second class, and Class C, which includes machine operator third
The Class AA operators are in charge of and operate the Weeke 1 and 2, Weeke 3, Weeke 6
BAZ machines, and are the highest paid classification in that department. A number of the
used are termed "CNC" (Computer Numeric Controlled) and the machine is "programmed"
operator in that they install the required settings for a particular production run by use of a
"Windows" program on the computer. In the Class AA, the Weeke 1, 3 and 6 machines are
machines. The Class A operators are in charge of and operate the Anton, Schwab, Shelling
saws, double-edged banders, Friz-Monco press, Wilmsmeyer-Koch, door machine and
the time in question, the Grievant primarily operated the moulder and door machine, but also
other machines on an "as needed" basis. Of the machines in Class A, the Grievant has run
the double-edged bander, the Fritz-Monco
press, the Wilmsmeyer-Koch machine, the door machine and the moulder. None of those
are CNC machines. The Grievant has also operated a BP-10 which is a CNC machine in the
B classification. The Grievant was trained on the BP-10 and operated it for approximately
weeks, but was not the lead operator. The programming on the BP-10 machine is generally
by the operator. The Grievant had operated the Weeke 1 machine during his first four years
employment and has assisted on the machine at some time in the last two years, and had
Weeke 3 machine, but could not recall the last time he had worked on that machine.
In mid-1997 the Company purchased a BP-155 CNC router manufactured by the Weeke
Company.The machine is used to produce the panels for a new product, the Atelier, and to
grommets in desktops, functions previously performed on the BAZ machine and the Weeke 3
On September 11, the Company posted the following for the new BP-155 CNC Router
TO:All Hourly Employees
FROM:Dave Lynch/Ken Liebetrau
RE: Job Opening: Machining Dept.
DATE: September 11, 1997
Job Opening: Machine Operator - First Class
Classification: Class "A"/First Shift
Job Description:The person selected for this position will be in charge
of the new BP-155
CNC Router. This machine will be used to route and bore holes in panels.
Responsibilities will include computer programing for set-up, quality control
-Ability to lift and position
-A good work
record, including attendance
communicate with other employees
organizational skills with the ability to anticipate and plan work loads
This job will be posted through September 15, 1997.
The Grievant signed the posting for the BP-155 position. At the same time, the Company
posted a BP-10 position. Both positions were on the first shift, however the BP-10 was a
wage classification. The applicants for the BP-155 position were interviewed by Lynch, who
performed the interviews for the BP-10 position. One of the signers for the BP-10 posting
Anderson, a Class AA drill press operator, who was signing for the lower classification job
to get on the first shift. As a Class AA drill press operator, Anderson had operated the
Weeke 3 and
Weeke 6 machines, both of which are CNC's, and was able to operate all of the drilling
In being interviewed for the BP-10 position, Anderson was asked by Lynch if he was
interested in the
BP-155 position which was also on the first shift, at which time Anderson signed the posting
BP-155 job. It has similarly happened in the past that management has approached an
asked him to sign a posting where management thinks the employe is qualified. Anderson
awarded the BP-155 position.
As operator of the BP-155, Anderson performs the quality control function on the
being produced and had also performed that function in his former position. The work
performs on the BP-155 is the same as he had performed on the previous machines he
a Class AA drill press operator.
The Grievant, who was not the most senior bidder on the BP-155 position, grieved his
to be awarded the job. The grievance was processed through the parties' grievance
being unable to resolve their dispute, the parties proceeded to arbitration on the grievance
In order to determine whether the Grievant's rights under Article VI, Section 1 of the
Agreement have been violated, it is necessary to determine whether the Employer could
consider Anderson to be superior to the Grievant on the basis of work record, skill, job
and ability to do the work.
Article VI, Section 1, of the Agreement provides, in relevant part:
"In those instances where employes are considered equal on the basis
of an employe's work
record, skill, job experience, ability to do the work, length of service will generally be
awarding new jobs and transfers."
In this case, the Grievant had 20 years of experience with the Company, whereas Anderson
had 10 years, and there is no indication that either employe had anything but a good work
However, as to skill and job experience, the testimony was that Anderson has been a Class
press operator for as long as there has been that classification, approximately six years, and
operated the Weeke 3 and 6 machines which are CNC's, as is the BP-155. Anderson also
that the work he does on the BP-155 is essentially the same as he performed on the previous
machines he had operated. The programming on the CNC machines normally consists of
the distances, the radius, etc. through a "Windows" program on the computer. Lynch, the
of the Machining Department, testified that he considered Anderson to be more qualified
his experience on desktops as a Class AA drill press operator and his CNC experience on the
1 and 3 machines, whereas the Grievant had not mentioned having any CNC experience
when he was
interviewed by Lynch. While Anderson had 5 to 6 years' experience on the Weeke machines
commensurate CNC experience, the Grievant could not recall when he had last worked on
Weeke 1 or the Weeke 3 machines, although he had assisted on the Weeke 1 sometime in the
years, but most of his primary experience on Weeke 1 had been during his early years with
Employer. The Grievant conceded that his CNC experience was primarily with the BP-10
a lower-skill class B machine, and that he was not the lead operator on the BP-10. While the
did not list CNC experience as a "qualification", it did state that, "Responsibilities will
computer programming for set-up, quality control and production." (Emphasis
It would appear then, that Anderson's skill as a Class AA drill press operator and his job
experience on CNC machines, as well as having performed the same work on those machines
now performs on the BP-155, provide a basis for the Employer to reasonably consider
superior to the Grievant in those areas, and the Employer could reasonably conclude from
Anderson would more quickly be able to perform the work than the Grievant. For those
is concluded that the Employer did not violate Article VI, Section 1, of the Agreement when
awarded Anderson the BP-155 position over the Grievant.
Based on the above and foregoing and the evidence in the record, the undersigned makes
issues the following
The grievance is denied.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 29th day of May, 1998.
David E. Shaw /s/
David E. Shaw, Arbitrator