Opinion ID: 617237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: February 20: GE Cancels the Zyglo Sorter Positions

Text: On February 20, 2008, Scagnelli sent an email to Sampson regarding the Zyglo jobs. In the email, Scagnelli advised Sampson to cancel the two zyglo jobs (they were backfills for Doherty & Murciak), the individuals whom GE initially believed were retiring when it posted the positions. Scagnelli additionally provided that GE would keep Sutherland ... once he is released [from his former position] & trained, and that GE can let the temp zyglo woman go. The February 20 email reaffirmed GE's position that Balser's position was not viewed as a permanent one by GE.
Balser first reported for work as a Zyglo Sorter on February 20, 2008. On or about March 3, 2008, [12] Doherty returned from medical leave and resumed his Zyglo Sorter position. Because GE had not yet released Sutherland from his prior position, Balser was able to remain in her position after Doherty's return. Sutherland first reported for his Zyglo Sorter position on March 17, 2008. Once Sutherland punched in for work, there were nine Zyglo Sorters, including Balser, doing the work generally done by seven or eight employees. Of the nine Zyglo Sorters, Balseras she herself concedeswas the least senior. [13] Factoring in the time required for Sutherland to undergo Zyglo training, and considering that Balser was the least senior of all the Zyglo Sorters, GE informed Balser that her position as a Zyglo Sorter would end on or about March 28, 2008. It is undisputed that it was company policy to lay off employees according to their seniority levels. GE offered Balser a position as a Stock Keeper on or about April 1, 2008. Balser first reported to work as a Stock Keeper on April 7, 2008. GE rates a Stock Keeper position, R-16, and a Zyglo Sorter position, IR-16. Pursuant to the CBA's Layoff and Transfer Supplement, if an employee transfers as a day worker to an open job with the specific intent of remaining in [her] department, [the employee] will be recalled only to previously held high rated classifications in [her] department. Further, under the CBA, [a]ny classification with the name numerical `IR' or `R' designation constitutes an equally rated classification. Thus, if an employee moves between two equally rated classifications, she will have no recall rights to the previous position. Applying these provisions to Balser, because both the Zyglo Sorter position and Stock Keeper position were equally rated classifications under the CBA, she did not have any recall rights to the Zyglo Sorter position.
Following her layoff from the Zyglo Sorter position, Balser decided to file a grievance. She turned to Union official Poland for assistance. Poland requested that Balser provide him with information confirming that the position from which she had been laid off had been an open, permanent position. Balser was unable to provide any hard copy evidence confirming that her position had been permanent. Instead, Balser discussed her initial meeting with Sampson, in which he had stated he believed the position would be permanent; provided a copy of the documents she brought to her interview with Towey, which had Doherty's name on them as the individual she was scheduled to replace; asked Poland to look into a paper that she had misplaced and to look up the job code and match it against the paperwork that [Sampson] gave [Balser] to bring to [Towey] to see that the coding was the same to show it was an open job; and asserted that Sutherland had been hired for the Zyglo Sorter position after her, confirming she was entitled to the position. On April 21, 2008, Poland submitted a grievance on behalf of Balser. The grievance stated that GE had no right to change [Balser's Zyglo Sorter position] to temporary status for their [sic] convenience. Balser reviewed and approved the grievance before its submission to Local 201, even though Balser presently disputes some of the information contained in the grievancespecifically, that Sampson informed her the Zyglo Sorter position would no longer be permanent. The Union reviewed Balser's grievance and investigated her claim. It determined, first, that Sutherland was the successful bidder on an upgrade for a Zyglo piecework position that was awarded to him in January 2008, before Balser was laid off from her prior position; second, Sutherland was not released earlier to the Zyglo piecework position because of departmental needs associated with his prior position; and third, the CBA permits GE to hold an employee in a previous position up to thirty days. The Union informed Balser of its findings and requested additional evidence supporting her claim. On receiving no additional evidence, Local 201 decided not to proceed to arbitration because it did not have sufficient evidence to support Balser's claim that the contested position was permanent. The Union made this determination on or about May 28, 2008.
On August 12, 2008, Balser filed a Complaint in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts against GE and Local 201. Balser asserted two counts in her Complaint. First, she argued that Local 201, her collective bargaining representative, had breached its duty of fair representation owed to her as a union member. Second, she contended that GE breached the terms of the CBA between GE and Local 201. GE and Local 201 filed Motions for Summary Judgment on May 17, 2010. The district court heard arguments on the motions on October 1, 2010. [14] On October 4, 2010, the district court entered an order granting GE and Local 201's Motions for Summary Judgment in their entirety because Balser could not show that GE's reclassification of the Zyglo Sorter position constituted a violation of the CBA by GE. Balser, 2010 WL 3927719, at -6.