Opinion ID: 617237
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Creation of Doherty Fiction Violated CBA

Text: Balser asserts GE and Local 201 colluded to create the pure fiction that she had been hired as a temporary injury replacement for Doherty, and such collusion was in violation of the CBA. Balser points to no evidence in the record, however, undermining GE's assertion that when the company initially posted for the Zyglo Sorter positions, it did so in the belief that Doherty and Murciak would be retiring soon. GE first sent out its Requests for Help to fill the Zyglo Sorter positions on January 28, 2008; Doherty was not out on sick leave until January 31, 2008. The fact that Doherty subsequently was absent due to sicknesscreating an immediate and actual Zyglo Sorter vacancy that quickly needed to be filleddoes not change the evidence (unrebutted by Balser) showing that when GE first recorded the anticipated vacancies, it did so in the understanding that these respective individuals would be retiring soon. In fact, the record reflects that it was accepted practice for GE to file Requests for Help in advance of an anticipated vacancy to ensure the filling of a position before an employee's absence. While the record does not clearly show why GE at first anticipated such individuals' retirement, [o]ur role is not to secondguess the business decisions of an employer. Rossy v. Roche Prods., Inc., 880 F.2d 621, 625 (1st Cir.1989). The evidence shows that on receiving information from both Murciak and Doherty that neither had immediate plans to retire, GE promptly reevaluated its needs for Zyglo Sorters and acted accordingly. Specifically, Murciak informed Merchant on February 13, 2008, of his intention to remain in the Zyglo Sorter position. Doherty received a doctor's note on February 13, 2008 and informed GE by mid-February of his intent to return to work as of early March. Both of these communications occurred mere days after GE had officially posted the Zyglo Sorter openings (February 12, 2008). Sampson testified that two or three days after his February 13 meeting with Balserduring which he first offered the Zyglo Sorter position he received notification from Human Resource Manager Scagnelli that the 11983A Zyglo Sorter position which had been offered to Balser needed to be reclassified from permanent to temporary as the individual for whom she was to serve as a replacement now would be returning to work. Balser's unsupported allegations that GE and Local 201 conspired to reclassify her position by subsequently creating the fiction of her serving as a temporary illness replacement for Doherty are insufficient to counter the record's showing of GE's objective reassessment of company staffing needs following a change in employee information. Indeed, Balser points to no testimony, email or letter correspondence, internal memoranda, or other documentation or communication supporting her contention that the Union and GE improperly schemed to reclassify; rather, the evidence shows that on learning of Doherty's subsequent and unpredicted absencedespite learning of his non-retirement plansGE reevaluated its staffing needs in the Zyglo Sorter field. At most, Balser points to the fact that the initial documentation she received on or around February 13 when applying for the position provided that she would be replacing Doherty. However, the evidence shows that Balser herself concededat both deposition and in her Statement of Undisputed Factsthat Sampson expressly informed her that Doherty's name on her employment documents [did] not mean that [was] the person [she ultimately would be] replacing, and that Sampson had given upgrades with other people's names on the paperwork [before], but that doesn't mean that [was] who [she would be] replacing on the job.  Additionally, Balser stated that at the time of her Zyglo Sorter interview, she was not under the impression that she was replacing anyone specifically. [16] Thus, given that Balser knew before her formal offer and acceptance of the Zyglo Sorter position that Doherty's name on the form did not affirmatively establish that he was the individual whom GE explicitly intended for her to replace cuts in favor of GE's practice of continually monitoring staffing needseven after job postingsand not towards a GE-Union conspiracy to justify reclassification.