1698 Kilmartin et al. v. Local Union 602

Prior to appellants’ employment as permanent entry-level employees, the National Parties had agreed that a specified number of positions would be designated “non-core” and that those positions would remain at the entry-level compensation level regardless of the employee’s job assignment. Nevertheless, appellants’ local representatives continued to suggest that transition to positions with traditional wages and benefits would occur as older employees left the workforce. Appellants observed older employees leaving the workforce, yet no one could explain why none of their group was being moved into traditional jobs governed by Paragraph (98) of the National Agreement. Appellants quite reasonably assumed that their apparently erroneous classification as “non-core” employees was what was preventing them from moving into jobs with traditional wages and benefits.

The UAW’s represented employees are entitled to a timely and comprehensible explanation of the contractual basis for their wages and benefits. Appellants did not receive that. If the IEB had conducted an investigation it would have discovered what had been communicated to appellants by the local union and it could have clarified their contractual rights. However, the union’s failure to conduct an investigation is not the basis for any relief under the collective bargaining agreement. During our hearing, the union established that appellants are being compensated in accordance with the applicable agreements. They did not incur any loss as a result of the incorrect information they were given after they accepted employment as entry-level employees.