BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
MIDWEST COCA-COLA BOTTLING
(Eau Claire and Wausau, Wisconsin)
GENERAL TEAMSTERS UNION, LOCAL NO.
(Chad Dietsche grievance concerning floating holidays)
Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, S.C., by Attorney
Mr. John J. Brennan,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, appearing on behalf of the Union.
Miller & Martin LLP, by Attorney
Mr. Ronald G. Ingham,
Chattanooga, Tennessee, appearing on
behalf of the Company.
At the joint request of the Union and Company noted above, the Wisconsin
Relations Commission designated the undersigned Marshall L. Gratz as Arbitrator to hear
a dispute concerning the above grievance, which dispute arose under the parties' 1995-97
Pursuant to notice, the grievance dispute was heard by the Arbitrator at the Stoney
in Rothschild, Wisconsin, on April 28, 1999. The proceedings were not transcribed,
parties agreed that the Arbitrator could maintain a cassette tape recording of the testimony
arguments for the Arbitrator's exclusive use in award preparation.
The parties' briefs were exchanged by the Arbitrator on May 28, 1999, marking the
close of the
To maximize the ability of the parties we serve to utilize the
Internet and computer software to research decisions
and arbitration awards issued by the Commission and its staff, footnote text is found in the
body of this decision.
The parties did not agree on a statement of issues. At the hearing, the Union
proposed that the
issues be framed as follows:
Does the Company violate the collective bargaining agreement by
failing to pay remaining floating
holidays at the time of employment termination? If so what is the appropriate remedy?
The Company proposed, instead, and the Union agreed, that
the Arbitrator be authorized to frame
the issues based on the evidence and arguments presented. In its brief, the Company posited
A. Whether there is any language in the labor contract which can
assist the Union in imposing liability
for floating holidays when an employe leaves employment?
B. Whether the Union's inaction in failing
to grieve this very issue on fifteen (15) or more discrete
occasions over past years gives insight into what everyone knew and, in fact, knows the
Based on the evidence and arguments presented by the
the Arbitrator frames the issues in
dispute in this matter as follows:
1. Did the Company violate the Agreement by failing to grant
Chad Dietsche paid time off or pay for
two floating holidays for calendar year 1997?
2. If so, what shall the remedy be?
PORTIONS OF THE
. . .
4.1 [5.1?] Recognized Holidays: The following days
shall, for the purposes of this Contract, be
recognized as Holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. In addition, the Employees will be granted three (3)
Holidays during the calendar year. The Company agrees to inform the Employee if floating
is approved no less than five (5) days prior to Holiday date taken, provided the request from
Employee is made at least seven (7) days in advance of the Holiday date.
4.2 [5.2?] Holiday Pay: For
each above-recognized Holiday, each Employee will be paid eight
(8) times his regular straight time hourly rate, provided he reports for work according to
his last workday preceding and his first work day following said Holiday, unless otherwise
by the Employer, except that a regular part-time Employee will be paid . . . .
. . .
If any Holiday falls within the . . . period
after the week following an Employe's layoff due to lack
of work or absence from work as a result of sickness or injury and such Employee is also
work [and?] returns to work during the same . . . period and the employee did not receive
Holiday pay, then in such case he will receive an extra day's pay for each Holiday missed in
in which he returns to work; . . . An Employe who was laid off because of lack of work or
is sick or
injured and is not recalled . . . to work within the fore-mentioned . . . period is not entitled
extra pay upon his return. Under no circumstances shall the extra pay referred to herein be
to be Holiday pay nor shall it be considered as hours worked for weekly overtime.
. . .
VACATIONS - FUNERAL ALLOWANCE - SICK
6.3 Vacation Accrual. All vacations earned must be
taken by Employees and no Employee shall
be entitled to vacation pay in lieu of vacation except, however, any Employee who has quit,
discharged, or laid off before he has worked his forty-five (45) weeks shall be entitled to
earned on a prorated basis, or at the rate of 1/45 of his vacation pay for each week worked
up to a
total of 45/45 or full vacation, provided such Employee has been employed for his first full
There shall be no accumulation or carry-over of unused vacation from one vacation year to
The Company is a soft drink distributor serving areas including Eau Claire and
Wisconsin. The Union represents various classifications of drivers, merchandisers and
personnel employed by the Company. The Company and Union have been parties to a series
collective bargaining agreements, including the Agreement.
Prior to his voluntary resignation becoming effective on June 5, 1997, the Grievant,
Dietsche, worked as a Delivery Salesman for the Company's Wausau branch.
In his grievance dated June 3, 1997, giving rise to this proceeding, Grievant asserts
Company violated Agreement Sec. "6.3 and all relevant articles" in that:
On June 3, 1997 Chad was told he would not receive
compensation for his remaining "floating
He was also denied the time off when he
requested it 7 days prior.
[Settlement requested:] Full compensation
for any and all lost benefits.
Company Employee Relations Manager Tanya L. Gilbertson
wrote to the Union's Business
Agents as follows on September 19, 1997:
Please allow this letter to serve as a follow-up to our meeting on
Wednesday, September 10,
1997. This letter is in regards to the grievance regarding paying Chad Dietsche his floating
when his employment ended with the Company on 6-5-97.
We have researched this issue and have
determined it has not been the Company's practice to pay
floating holidays to an employee when they leave the Company. If an employee submits
voluntary notice of termination, it is not our practice to allow them to use all paid time off
remaining days/weeks so they do not lose it. If an employee requests time off during the
notice has been given, it is granted at the discretion of the supervisor/manager. In addition,
Company does not feel it violated the collective bargaining agreement. The contract
"Any employee who has quit, been discharged, or laid off before he has worked his
weeks shall be entitled to vacation pay earned on a pro-rated basis, or at the rate of 1/45 of
vacation pay for each week worked up to a total of 45/45 or full vacation." The contract
address any payout provisions for floating holidays.
Mr. Dietsche submitted approximately a two
week notice for his voluntary resignation. Mr.
Dietsche was allowed to take 1 of his floating holidays during that period, however, due to
Memorial Day holiday as well as the busy seasonal period, it was not practical to allow Mr.
to take all of his floating holidays during this period. The Company feels it was more than
honoring one day off as a paid floating holiday during his last two weeks and does not feel
entitled to be paid an additional 2 floating holidays.
If you have any further questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact me . . . .
The grievance was ultimately submitted for arbitration as
above. At the hearing, the
Union presented testimony by Business Agent David Reardon. The Company
Union's witness, entered various business records by stipulation, and rested. The Union
Reardon briefly on rebuttal, concluding the evidentiary hearing.
Over Company hearsay objections, Reardon testified about what a fellow Union
Agent, Dan Alexander, told him had happened to him when he left the employ of the
went to work for the Union in 1995. According to Reardon, Alexander told him that when
the Company he was paid not only vacation benefits but that he also had one unused floating
for which he requested and received pay, as well.
On cross-examination, Reardon testified that, in the rounds of contract negotiations
Company that occurred both before and after the instant grievance was filed, the Union did
propose either specific floating holiday pay-out language such as appears in Agreement
regarding vacations or catch-all payout language such as it has in contracts with some other
employers. Reardon explained that the Union chose, instead, to rely on the language of
requiring that "Employees will be granted three (3) floating Holidays during the calendar
Reardon also testified that in the beverage industry, the ease or difficulty of
and floating holiday time off varies depending on the time of year because, for example, the
Day and July 4 holidays can involve a doubling of the volume of beverage sales. Reardon
testified that the Agreement is permissive regarding when the floating holidays are taken; that
Company has made reasonable efforts to grant employes' floating holiday requests over the
that there have been no other grievances to his knowledge arising regarding Company denials
requests to take floating holidays.
The Company payroll system reports entered into evidence showed floating holiday
received by full time bargaining unit Wausau employes in the calendar year they left the
employ since the beginning of 1995. Of the 16 employes for whom such reports were
four received zero floating holidays, four received one floating holiday, two received two
holidays, six received three floating holidays, and two (Brian Antone and Dan Alexander) are
as receiving four floating holidays. 2/ The documents also show that in addition to
other employes (including Grievant) received one floating holiday benefit during their last
1/ Detail sheets were not presented for five employes who left
the Company's employ within six months of being
2/ The record does not establish why Antone and Alexander were
shown as having been compensated for four
floating holidays when Article V has referred at all relevant times to only three per calendar
year. The Company's
only explanation was that compensation for the fourth holiday was a mistake. As to
Alexander, at least, Reardon
offered the possible explanation that one of the entries recorded in the report as pay for a
floating holiday might
have, instead, constituted pay for work on a holiday.
Additional factual background is set forth in the positions of the parties and the
POSITION OF THE UNION
In its opening statement at the hearing, the Union asserted that the facts were as
reflected in the
grievance and answer, Joint Exhibits 2 and 3; that Agreement Article V unconditionally
". . . Employees will be granted three (3) floating Holidays during the calendar year"; that
therefore have the right to use all three floating holidays at any time during the
subject only to the Employer's reasonable right to approve the particular day on which the
holiday time off with pay is taken; and that when an employe quits, the days are an accrued
just like vacation; and that the relevant past practice evidence will support the Union's
in those regards.
In its brief, the Union argues that the evidence establishes that where an employe
has asked for
their remaining unused holidays at the time of a voluntary quit the employe has received
only individuals known to have asked are Alexander and Grievant. Unlike the Grievant,
Alexander protested the Company's original failure to pay, he was ultimately paid.
The Company's practice evidence shows that other individuals have not been paid
floating holidays at the time of termination. However, the Company has not shown either
of these individuals asked for their floating holidays at the time they left or that the Union
that these employes were going uncompensated for their accrued floating holidays. That
evidence cannot bind the Union because the practice was not open and notorious and because
Union has not been shown to have known of or therefore acquiesced in it.
Because it is undisputed that the Grievant could have taken all of his floating
January if he had chosen to do so, it follows that all three of his floating holidays constituted
that he had earned. The Company is penalizing Grievant for failing to take his floating
to ask for the remaining ones until the "busy season." However, the Grievant's entitlement
off with pay for those floating holidays or to holiday pay in lieu of the holidays cannot be
the Company's whim by virtue of the Company's denial of time off prior to the effective
date of his
voluntary quit. Citing Mahoning Sparkle Markets, 91 LA 1366, 1371 (Sharpe, 1988)("While
the [personal] holiday must be taken at a time when it is mutually agreeable to the Company
Employee, there is no substantive contractual limitation on entitlement to this benefit. It is,
reasonable to interpret the personal holiday as an earned benefit to which employees who had
taken it were entitled when the company ceased business operations.") and Stowe-Woodward
unpublished (Grenig, 10/11/93)(company ordered to pay holidays preceding vacation week
preceding effective date of employe resignation despite "last day before/first day after" work
requirement for holiday eligibility.)
The Grievant complied with his obligations under the Agreement. He submitted his
request at least seven days in advance of the date. His request was denied due, allegedly, to
that this was the Employer's busy season. That denial does not act as a forfeiture of his
to pay in lieu of taking the day.
For those reasons, the Arbitrator should order the Company to pay Chad Dietsche
for his two
remaining 1997 floating holidays.
POSITION OF THE COMPANY
In its opening statement, the Company asserted that because no provision of the
unconditionally vests employes with the right to three floating holidays, the Union is
obtain something through arbitration that it has not obtained at the bargaining
table. Unlike the Article VI vacation accrual and prorata payout language, Article V
holidays contains no such provision. Rather, Article V requires that an employe request a
holiday seven days before the requested time off and that the Company must respond with its
approval or denial within five days of the requested time off. The Company's business is
that the Company cannot always grant floating holidays when they are requested. The
evidence relating to one employe being paid in lieu of taking a floating holiday off in
his termination cannot constitute a binding practice in the face of the Company's evidence
other employes have left the Company without being paid for some or all of their unused
In its brief, the Company reiterates that the Agreement requires employes to request
holidays at least seven days in advance and provides that the Company shall approve or deny
requests at least five days prior to the intended holiday. However, the Agreement is silent
what happens if an employe leaves the employ of the Company without having used one or
the three floating holidays.
The Company records entered into evidence show that among the employes who left
Company since the beginning of 1995, some received three floating holidays but others
of them and others received none of them. Yet, the only grievance on the subject is that
filed by the
Grievant in this case.
Granting the grievance in the circumstances of this case would create a holiday
requirement where the parties have not chosen to put one into the Agreement. It would also
eliminate the right of the Company to approve or deny requests for floating holidays which
expressly recognized in Article V -- a right which Reardon admitted in his testimony that the
Company has historically exercised reasonably.
For those reasons, the Arbitrator should deny the grievance in all respects.
For the Union to prevail on ISSUE 1, it must persuasively establish either that (1)
Agreement unconditionally guarantees employes paid time off or pay in lieu of paid time off
three floating holidays per calendar year referred to in the first section of Article V; or that
(2) in the
circumstances of this case Grievant was nonetheless entitled to more floating holiday benefits
Are Floating Holidays Unconditionally Guaranteed?
The Agreement, in Sec. 6.3, expressly provides for a payout formula for unused
benefits applicable at the time of a voluntary quit or other termination of employment. By its
however, that section applies specifically to vacation and hence not
to floating holidays which are the subject of a separate Agreement Article.
Accordingly, to the extent
that the Grievant referred to and relied on Sec. 6.3 in his grievance, that reliance is
The language that is applicable to this dispute is that contained in the first section of
It provides that, in addition to the six named holidays, "the Employees will be granted three
floating Holidays during the calendar year. The Company agrees to inform the Employee if
Holiday is approved no less than five (5) days prior to Holiday being taken, provided the
the Employee is made at least seven (7) days in advance of the Holiday date."
That language gives the employe a right to request to take all three floating holidays
pay at any time "during the calendar year," subject to the right of the Company to approve
disapprove the taking of the floating holiday on particular dates requested.
The Company's discretion in that regard is subject to the implied covenant of good
faith and fair
dealing which is ordinarily presumed to be a part of all agreements. E.g.,
St. Antoine (ed.) The
Common Law of the Workplace -- The Views of Arbitrators, 75 (NAA/BNA,
American contract law teaches that every contract imposes on each party a duty of good faith
performing the agreement. . . . [A]rbitrators use the doctrine of good faith as an interpretive
define ambiguous contractual language in a way that prevents an employer or union from
spirit of the bargain . . . .") Accordingly, the Company cannot exercise its right to
requests to take floating holidays off on particular days arbitrarily or in a bad faith effort to
rights of an employe to enjoy the three floating holidays recognized in Article V.
The question arises, however, what if the Company has a legitimate operational
disapproving each of the days off that the employe requests in order to use all three floating
before the end of the calendar year or before the end of the employe's employment with the
The Union's answer would apparently be that the agreement mandates that the three
holidays "will be granted . . . during the calendar year"; that absent clear language to the
parties must be presumed not to have intended those benefits to be subject to forfeiture; and
employe must therefore either be given time off with pay or pay in lieu of paid time off.
The Company's answer would apparently be that the Agreement makes no provision
in lieu of paid time off from work; that time off with pay is available only on dates approved
Company; that the employe has no right to Company approval as regards any date that the
has a legitimate operational basis for disapproving; and that when the employe leaves the
before taking all three floating holidays off, the employe has no right to time off or pay as
unused floating holidays.
The Arbitrator finds it appropriate to interpret the Agreement holiday language
in the context of the Agreement as a whole and in a manner consistent with its evident
Reading the Agreement as a whole, it is notable that the parties expressly provided
for a cash
payout of vacation benefits upon termination but made no such provision concerning
holidays. It is
also notable that, in the second section of Article V, the parties expressly provided a
cash payment to employes returning to work from certain layoffs but made no such provision
concerning employes whose employment has terminated.
In that context, the purpose of the parties' agreement to floating holidays appears to
enable the employes to enjoy additional holiday time off from work without loss of pay,
enabling the Company to avoid scheduling the additional time off on dates when it would
particularly adverse impact on Company operations or costs. The floating holidays language
appears to have been intended to make the entire annual floating holiday benefit available to
requested, approved and taken at any time during the calendar year, such that all three days
benefit could theoretically be requested, approved and taken in January of the calendar year.
Where an employe chooses to resign from the Company's employ prior to the end
of a calendar
year without having taken floating holidays on dates that were requested and approved in
with the parties' above-noted mutual intentions, the employe thereby reduces the
the process contemplated by the parties to operate. To the extent that the employe has
caused a reduction in the opportunities for that contemplated process to achieve its
objectives, it is
not inequitable or unreasonable for the employe to run the risk of a consequential reduction
elimination of the benefit.
For those reasons, the Arbitrator concludes that the Agreement does not
guarantee employes paid time off or pay in lieu of time off for the three floating holidays per
year provided in Article V.
However, as noted above, the Company cannot exercise its right to disapprove
requests to take
floating holidays off on particular days arbitrarily or in a bad faith effort to defeat the rights
employe to enjoy the three floating holidays recognized in Article V.
Did the Circumstances of this Case Entitle Grievant
to More Floating Holidays Than He Received?
In this case, the basic facts giving rise to the grievance were not developed in detail
hearing, nor were they described or analyzed in detail by the parties in their briefs. In his
statement, Union Counsel stated that the above-quoted grievance and answer in Exhibits 2
accurately reflect the underlying fact situation. The Company's opening statement took issue
with the Union's proposed interpretation of the Agreement, not with
any of the underlying facts as reflected in Exhibits 2 and 3. Those documents were
evidence by stipulation as joint exhibits. Beyond that, neither party presented a witness with
first-hand knowledge of the facts, and the Company did not present any witnesses at all,
Arbitrator with a rather thin evidentiary basis to work with. 3/
3/ For example, Reardon testified that he did
not know whether Grievant had in fact requested a third floating
Based on Joint Exhibits 2 and 3 and the record as a whole, the Arbitrator finds the
facts as follows. Grievant's "employment ended with the Company on 6-5-97." Prior to that
he "submitted approximately a two week notice for his voluntary resignation." At the time
submitted that notice, Grievant had not taken any floating holidays in 1997. After giving his
approximately two week notice, and at least "7 days prior" to filing the instant grievance on
1997, Grievant requested Company approval for his taking all three of his unused floating
off with pay prior to the effective date of his resignation. The record does not reveal
Grievant requested that time off on particular dates or on any of his remaining work days
Company. The Company approved and Grievant took one floating holiday off with pay prior
end of his employment with the Company. The Company denied the Grievant's request for
floating holiday time off "when he requested it." While there is some uncertainty about
Grievant specifically requested his third floating holiday off when the Company denied his
take his second, the Arbitrator finds that, in the face of the Company's denial of the second
holiday off, a specific request for a third day off would have been futile. In its grievance
Company's stated reason for that denial was that "due to the Memorial Day holiday as well
busy seasonal period, it was not practical to allow [Grievant] to take all of his floating
this period. The Company feels it was more than fair in honoring one day off as a paid
holiday during his last two weeks and does not feel he is entitled to be paid an additional 2
holidays." The Company further informed Grievant on June 3, 1997, that "he would not
compensation for his remaining 'floating holidays.'" The Company's stated reason for
of compensation for his remaining floating holidays was that unlike the vacation language in
cited in the grievance, "the contract does not address any payout provisions for floating
Reardon's testimony confirms the common sense notion that beverage industry sales
distribution activities are cyclical, with particularly high levels of activity surrounding, for
the Memorial Day and July 4 holidays. The calendar reveals that in 1997 Memorial Day
fell on a Friday. By statute it was observed by state and municipal governments
in Wisconsin on the last Monday in May, which in 1997 was May 26. Sec. 45.49(1),
(1995-96). Both that Monday and that Friday were well within the approximately two week
after Grievant gave his notice of intent to quit and before the end of Grievant's employment
Company. In addition, "Memorial Day" is one of the fixed contractual holidays recognized
parties in Article V of the Agreement.
The record also reveals that the Company has not pursued an arbitrary blanket
refusing to grant requests for floating time off to employes in the pay periods immediately
their resignations. It granted one of the floating holidays Grievant requested after giving his
approximately two week notice. The payroll records also show that the Company approved
floating holiday for each of three other employes within the last two weeks preceding their
terminations. In that regard, Reardon testified that, based on the limited extent to which he
such information, employes typically give the Company two weeks notice of their intent to
In all of the foregoing circumstances, the Arbitrator concludes that the evidence is
establish that the Company's denial of Grievant's remaining two days was not an arbitrary or
exercise of the Company's right to approve or disapprove Grievant's requests to take those
days off prior to the effective date of his resignation. Grievant was not able to take the two
floating holidays due to a combination of his decision to quit the Company on approximately
weeks notice given shortly before the contractual Memorial Day holiday, without having
requested, obtained approval for, and taken any of his floating holidays; coupled with the
legitimate operational needs for Grievant's services as a Delivery Salesman during the
busy period associated with the Memorial Day holiday. 4/
4/ While more detailed evidence concerning
the nature of the impact of Grievant's requests on the Company's
operational needs would have been useful, the Arbitrator has had to rely on the limited but
information available in Exhibits 2 and 3 to sort out other aspects of the facts underlying this
the Arbitrator has also found it appropriate to consider such information as regards whether
the Company acted
arbitrarily or in bad faith in denying the floating holidays in question.
Accordingly, the Arbitrator concludes that the Company did not violate the
failing to grant Grievant either paid time off or pay in lieu of paid time off as regards the
floating holidays that he lost in connection with his voluntary termination of employment.
The past practice evidence presented by the parties does not persuasively support a
result. The Company's evidence relates to unused floating holiday benefits not received at
termination. There is no basis in the record on which to reliably conclude that the
Union was aware of the Company's practice in that regard except in the cases of
Alexander and the
Grievant. Accordingly, there is no basis on which to bind the Union to an understanding
employes are not unconditionally entitled to be granted time off or pay for unused floating
at the time their employment with the Company terminates. The Union's evidence relates to
instance in which an employe was paid cash in lieu of time off for a floating holiday in
with his resignation. The record does not establish the precise factual circumstances that
the Company's payments to Alexander as regards his 1995 floating holidays. Especially so
Alexander's payroll records that seemingly reflect that he was compensated for four floating
in 1995 when the contract then and now provided for only three. In any event, the single
cited by the Union is not sufficiently longstanding and uniform a practice to bind the
unconditionally grant floating holidays off or pay in lieu thereof to employes who request
that it do
so in connection with the termination of their employment.
The published awards cited by the Union do not persuasively support a different
In the Mahoning case it was Company's closing all of its stores -- and hence a matter over
the employes had no control -- that resulted in the employes' inability to schedule their
holidays by mutual agreement with the employer as their contract provided, and the personal
language expressly provided for a cash payout of that benefit if it was not used by the second
of December. 91 LA at 1367. In contrast, the Grievant in the instant case controlled
and with how much advance notice to the Company he would quit his employment, and the
Agreement expressly provides payout upon termination only as regards vacation benefits and
regards holidays. In Stowe-Woodward the arbitrator sustained a claim for holiday pay for
holidays that preceded a scheduled vacation that, in turn, preceded what the arbitrator found
grievant's effective date of resignation. In contrast, the instant case involves a floating
unrelated to any vacation. Neither the result reached in that case nor the arbitrator's ruling
company waived the contractual work requirement by granting and not revoking approval of
grievant's vacation, persuasively supports the contentions advanced by the Union in this case.
A general review of published awards concerning holiday eligibility issues reveals
holidays are recognized as a bargained-for benefit rather than a gratuity. As such they are
not to be deemed forfeited if there is a reasonable alternative interpretation of the contract.
stated contractual conditions on holiday eligibility must ordinarily be met before a holiday
due. However, noncompliance with such conditions may be excused where employer bad
prevents the employe from complying. See generally, Abrams, R. and Nolan,
D., "Resolving Holiday
Pay Disputes in Labor Arbitration," 33 Case Western Reserve Law Review 380 et
seq. (1983), and
published awards cited therein.
In this case, the Agreement clearly recognizes three floating holidays per employe
year, which can be requested, approved and taken at any time during the calendar year.
the Agreement also clearly requires the employe to obtain Company approval of the date on
a floating holiday is to be taken. Grievant did not meet that requirement as regards either
two floating holidays at issue in this case. It is not a reasonable
alternative interpretation of the Agreement to unconditionally require the Company to
payout any and
all unused floating holidays in cash upon termination because the parties included no such
in the Agreement whereas they included such provisions regarding vacation payout at
regarding holidays for employes returning from certain layoffs. Finally, the Company's
Grievant's requests to take the two floating holidays on dates requested by Grievant prior to
effective date of his resignation was a good faith response based on Company business needs
a bad faith effort to prevent Grievant from enjoying the two remaining unused floating
Accordingly, the Arbitrator has denied the grievance in all respects.
DECISION AND AWARD
For the foregoing reasons and based on the record as a whole, it is the decision and
the Arbitrator on the STIPULATED ISSUES noted above that
1. No. The Company did not violate the Agreement
by failing to grant Chad Dietsche paid time
off or pay for two floating holidays for calendar year 1999?
2. Accordingly, the subject grievance
is denied, and no consideration of a remedy is necessary
Dated at Shorewood, Wisconsin this 2nd day of July, 1999.
Marshall L. Gratz, Arbitrator