1621 Grima and Hayosh v. IEB

As a JOBS bank employee, Grima was considered employed under the jurisdiction of Local 174. He ran for president in 2004 and won. In 2005, GM negotiated the Special Attrition Plan for the Sewing Machine Repairman, which changed Grima’s employment status. Grima ought to have selected one of the options described in the plan by July 18, 2005. He did not choose an option, but instead asked to be put on Paragraph (109) leave. His request for Paragraph (109) leave did not negate the application of the Special Attrition Plan, however. When Grima made no option under the plan, his right to be recalled to a production job at another location went into effect. The International Union claims that applying the area hire provisions in the UAW/GM National Agreement to Grima resulted in his placement at the Pontiac Assembly Plant under the jurisdiction of UAW Local 594. Although Article 17, §3, allows an elected local union officer to continue in office as a member of the local union until the expiration of his term, when Grima was removed from office by the administrator, the exception stated in the final paragraph of Article 17, §3, no longer applied. At that point, Grima was entitled to an honorable withdrawal card to be deposited with Local Union 594 in order to continue his membership in good standing pursuant to Article 17, §4.

Joseph Hayosh’s situation is different from Grima’s because the Lear Closing Agreement involved a severance package. Acceptance of a severance package amounts to a voluntary separation from employment under the jurisdiction of the UAW and results in the automatic issuance of an honorable withdrawal card. The fact that Hayosh did not physically take the money until a much later date than that specified in the Lear Closing Agreement did not change his status under the Constitution. After December 21, 2007, Hayosh was no longer eligible to certify for out-of-work credits because he had voluntarily severed his employment relationship with Lear Corporation. On that date, he was automatically issued an honorable withdrawal card in accordance with Article 17, §2.

Appellants are no longer members of Local 174 and we do not believe that the equitable considerations they have cited require further proceedings in this particular case.