BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
LAFAYETTE COUNTY MANOR
LOCAL NO. 115, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
On September 23, 1997, Local 115, AFSCME, AFL-CIO filed a request with the
Employment Relations Commission to appoint a commissioner or member of its staff to serve
sole arbitrator to hear and decide two grievances pending between the parties. The matter
assigned to the undersigned who conducted an evidentiary hearing on Friday, November 14,
at Darlington, Wisconsin. No transcript was made and the parties waived the filing of
The parties stipulated to the following issue:
Did the employer violate the collective bargaining agreement by
failing to pay the grievant time
and one-half call-in pay for work performed on March 26, 1997 and, if so, what is the
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The grievant is not an "on call" employee. The grievant was called in on
26 1997 which is her normally scheduled day off. Since the grievant was called in outside of
regular hours of work, she should have been paid time and one-half.
The grievant worked on March 26, 1997 from 6:30 a.m. to
3:00 p.m., which are the same
hours of the day she normally works. Since she worked the same shift on March 26,
1997 as normal,
she is not entitled to overtime pay.
Article 23 - Wages and Classifications
. . .
Section 4. On-Call and Call-In Pay:
. . .
All employees not designated as "On-Call" who are called in to
work during hours outside of the
normal work shift shall be paid at the rate of time and one half (1 ½). Such employee
guaranteed a minimum of two (2) hours pay upon being called in pursuant to this paragraph.
The grievant, Becky Burris, is a permanent part-time employee of Lafayette Manor
works a regular schedule of hours from 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday and
Friday. At 5:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 26, 1997 she was called in to
work from 6:30 a.m. to
3:00 p.m. She has come in on many Wednesdays and has never been paid time and
two maintenance employees (a supervisor and assistant supervisor) receive on-call pay.
who work a ten day payroll and are called in for an eleventh day of work in the pay period
time and one-half for the work in excess of the tenth day. These are employees who are
scheduled to work for ten days and who are called in another day in the fourteen-day pay
The contract language is unclear. It could mean, as the union suggests, that
in outside of their regular schedule of hours are to receive time and one-half. It could mean,
employer suggests, that the language requires time and one-half pay only when the employee
in to work on hours different from the hours they normally work.
When contract language is unclear, it is customary to look at bargaining history
practice to ascertain the intent of the parties.
There is no bargaining history evidence in the record relative to the second paragraph
Article 23, Section 4. There is evidence in the record relative to the history of overtime pay
employees who work on more than ten days during a fourteen-day pay period. Mr. Larsen,
representative, called Tim Hendricks who testified that a union member came to him and
that the employer grant such pay. However, the record does not reflect that the employee's
was part of the contract bargaining process or that the request or response was based on an
interpretation of Article 23, Section 4, paragraph two (the employee who approached
not testify). Therefore bargaining history is not of assistance in interpreting the relevant
The evidence is that employees who are not scheduled to work ten days in a pay
never been paid time and one-half for working their regular shift on days outside of their
schedule. The past practice evidence therefore supports the employer's position as to the
facts of this
Finally, while it is not evidence deriving from the parties' particular relationship, it
acknowledged that the word "shift" as used in industrial relations favors the employer's
Robert's Dictionary of Industrial Relations (BNA 1966) defines shift as "A
regularly scheduled period
of work during the twenty-four hour day for a plant. The shift has a fixed beginning and
day." On March 26, 1997 the grievant worked the same shift as her normal work shift. The
does not require time and one-half pay under these circumstances.
The employer did not violate the contract. The grievance is dismissed.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 31st day of March, 1998.
James R. Meier, Arbitrator