1. In view of the decision in this case, if the same situation arose again during the same contract, do you think an employee quitting at the end of January, after completing 100 days of work since his previous vacation, could claim vacation pay immediately, or would he have to wait for the next August 1 before getting it?
2. The vacation clause states that employees on leave of absence due to injury are deemed to be working, for purposes of meeting the 100-day requirement. Let us assume that an employee ended his 1968 vacation on July 15 and worked 100 days before the end of the year. He then suffered an injury that kept him from work during the first four months of 1969. On quitting his job on May 1, he would have more than 100 working days to his credit, but he would not have had any earnings during the first three months of 1969 on which to base his vacation pay. How would you propose that the problem be solved?
3. In view of the decision in this case, do you think Stan would have won the week of vacation pay if, instead of quitting, he had been discharged for just cause?
4. This arbitration case revealed many ambiguities in the vacation clause. We do not know whether, during the next contract negotiations, the parties made an effort to write a more satisfactory clause. If you were a negotiator for the company, what language would you propose in order to give employees vacation money provided they worked at least 100 days since the last vacation, and provided they were still in the company's employ by, let us say, May 1?