CASE S T U DIES Case Study 10-1 Contract Interpretation The collective bargaining agreement contained a provi- sion allowing for double-time pay to be paid as follows: for hours worked on the sixth or seventh consecutive day in a workweek, provided that the employee has worked the full assigned hours in the previous five or six work- days, respectively, in the workweek. The grievant, a production worker, was 10 minutes late reporting for work on a Thursday morning. He was late because he was a passenger in a car that had a flat tire. As a result of his tardiness, he was only paid time and a half instead of double time for working the follow- ing Saturday. The union grieved the issue on the basis that the parties had a different understanding during the negotiating process from the company's current inter- pretation of the double-time section of the contract. The union stated that at the 14th negotiating session, Chapter 10. Implementing the Collective Bargaining Agreement 473 the company's negotiator had agreed not to count rea- sonable tardiness against the double-time provision but language meant. The arbitrator had to decide whether the had refused to change the language used in the contract. employee should receive double-time pay for the Saturday The company negotiator, however, stated that the very work or be punished for the Thursday tardiness. The arbi- purpose of the double-time section was to allow for dou- trator could not rely on the meeting of the minds" concept ble-time pay only if there was no absenteeism in the pre- because obviously the parties disagreed as to what was ceding week. The only comment he remembered contained in the collective bargaining agreement. There making regarding "reasonable application" was in had been previous grievances on the same issue, but those response to a maintenance worker on the negotiating arbitration awards were inconsistent. Explaining that it is committee who thought it was not fair that he worked his the arbitrator's role to use judgment in a particular griev- regular hours Monday through Friday but would be ance not only to reflect what the contract says but also to denied double time on Sunday if he were a few minutes give effect to the bargain, the arbitrator attempted to discover the purpose for the provision. late on Saturday. The company negotiator remembers The company stated that the double-time provision responding that, in that situation, he would agree to was added to the contract as a means of combating apply a reasonable standard to maintenance workers for absenteeism during the week. It was, therefore, both a Sunday double time following a tardiness on Saturday carrot and a stick provision. The use by the company of because the 25 maintenance workers were regularly the tardiness rule was in and itself not unreasonable. scheduled for both Saturday and Sunday, whereas the The question that the arbitrator needed to resolve was 650 to 675 production workers were rarely, if ever, whether the grievant in this case would have the incen- scheduled to work on Sundays. tive to avoid tardiness to get double-time pay under the The arbitrator was faced with clear contract language facts as presented. but convincing evidence that the parties at the negotiating table had a different understanding of what the contract SOURCE: Adapted from Mor Flo Industry, Inc., 83 LA 480. 3. If the contract language is clear, why should the arbitrator even hear a case such as this? QUESTIONS 1. As the arbitrator, which fact would you consider most important in deciding this case? Why? 2. Would denying the employee his double-time pay in this instance give "effect" to the bargain of the parties? Explain your