Opinion ID: 617237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: GE Exercised Discretion to Enable the Union to Deprive Balser of the Zyglo Sorter Position

Text: Balser argues that GE's exercise of discretion, which she asserts was for the sole and improper purpose of allowing the Union to deprive her of the Zyglo Sorter position, violated her rights under the CBA. Balser points to no provision in the CBA that supports her assertion that GE's exercise of discretion in (1) reclassifying the Zyglo Sorter position on acquiring updated information concerning staffing needs in that department; (2) weighing the Union's view that hiring Balser for that position would contradict GE practice and/or CBA procedures; and (3) considering the Union's advisement that hiring a lack of work employee for a typically upgrade-based position would create conflict among more senior-level employees, constituted a violation of the CBA. Balser references the following provisions to support her contention that GE's reclassification violated the CBA: (1) Art. IV, section 2, providing that the Union shall not intimidate or coerce an employee; (2) Art. XXIX, section (a), providing that GE acknowledges the Union's obligation to fairly and effectively represent its employees; (3) Art. XXVIII, section 1, providing that GE will, to the extent practical, give first consideration for job openings and upgrading to present employees with the necessary qualifications; and (4) Art. 1(C) of the Layoff and Transfer Supplement, providing that [a]ffected daywork employees will be transferred to any equally rated or higher rated open classification . . ., exclusive of upgrading, for which they are qualified considering their employment record. None of these provisions expressly or implicitly restricts GE's exclusive right to consider workforce requirements and, if necessary, to reclassify a position from temporary to permanent, or vice versa, when information concerning staffing needs has changed. Articles IV and XXIX specifically address the Union's obligations to GE employees, and are more applicable to Balser's second argument concerning the Union's duty of fair representation; the latter Articles acknowledge GE's right to consider an employee's qualifications and overall employment record when transferring or filling a position. Although Balser tries to bolster her argument that she was eligible for and thus entitled to the Zyglo Sorter positioneffectively preventing, as she asserts, GE's reclassification of the positionby citing to Article 1(C) of the Layoff and Transfer Supplement, the issue is not whether Balser met the position's requirements (on which we pass no judgment), but simply, whether GE had the right to reassess its staffing needs for the position and subsequently reclassify it before Balser first punched in. The CBA's granting of the exclusive right to manage the work force to GE affirms that it did. Given that Balser carries the compass to direct us towards material in the record showing that GE's discretionary actsconducted pursuant to GE's exclusive right to manage the work force under the CBAin fact violated the CBA, her inability to point us to any supporting evidence effectively leaves us on a ship without its captain steering towards summary judgment shores.