The usual rule in arbitration is that clear language is to be applied, while ambiguous language must be interpreted. There is no ambiguity in the vacation language on the subject of what the level of benefits are, nor how the employee qualifies for a given level. While the Company's approach to prorating vacation benefits is not irrational, it cannot be reconciled with the contract language as it is written, and the arbitrator has no authority to modify the contract. The Company's proration theory is inconsistent with the contract language. However, at least with respect to the grievances of Wendricks and Simon, the Union's claim of a contract violation is also inconsistent with the contract.
Vacation pay is due to be paid on an employee's anniversary date.
The new contract lowering the threshold for receiving the 4th week of vacation became effective on November 1, 1995. Simon's anniversary date was in September of 1995 and Wendricks' was in October. They both received three weeks' vacation pay on their anniversary, which was the appropriate amount under the contract as it then stood. The right to a 4th week did not come into existence until after these two grievants had already received the full measure of contract benefits owed to them. There was no contract violation at the time of the payment, and there is nothing in the language of the new contract to suggest that the parties meant to reach back and retroactively increase benefits paid before the contract term.