The sub., 1944-02-17


 ject of major interest to everyone, ''The Sub" reprints herewith a portion of the Union brief filed with the WLB relating to vacations.
 The dispute is confined to CD rate to be used in calculating vaca- ton pay (2) number of hours in a
 vacation week (3) length of ser
 vice for vacation, and (4) retroac- tivity. Taking up first the question
 on the rate to be issued in call
 culation, the Union agrees that the
 normal rate as used in the prior
 contract is proper for all first shift employees. However, in the case
 of the second shift employees who,
 for some years, have been geceiv- ing a shift premium, the Union asked in it's proposal and during
 negotiations sought an agreement by the Company that the rate for second shift employees shall in- clude the shift premium.
 The basis of the argument of the Union for including the shift em- ployees are accustomed to rece1v- ing a weeks pay which includes a shift premium. In receiving a vacation pay, they ought not to re- ceive any less than that which they have been actually receiving each week. In other words, if they are being given weeks vacation pay, they should get the same pay which they receive when they actually work.
 The same argument and princf- pies should be applied to the num- Der of hours in the week for which the employees are paid. In the prior agreement, employees re-
 ceived 48 hours pay. At that time, the regular work week was 48
 hours and it was naturally just and
 proper that the vacation pay be
 co-extensive with the normal work
 week in terms of hours.
 Several months ago, the Com
 pany heightened the workday to
 nine {90 hours per day or fifty
 four f54) hour week. This was the
 subject matter of still another dis
 pute between the Union and the
 Company which was certified by
 the Cancellation Service of the
 United States Department of labor
 to this commission but subsequent
 ly withdrawn. All this occurred while actual negotiations were un-
 der way for the contract. The Un- ion opposed the nine {9) hour day at the time when vacations were
 under negotiation in the collective bargaining for the new contract and hence little, if anything, was said concerning the extent in hours of a one week vacation. Subse- quently, the number of hours worked day was changed and at the present time, there is an t812) hour day in effect.
 The Union contends that when a vacation is received, the pay in terms of hours, should be COCK tensive with the number of hours being worked in work week at that particular time. This is the same theory the Union advances in reference to selecting the hourly rate for calculating vac ation money.
 The third point involved in the vacation dispute is the length of service required for vacations. As to the length of service re- quired, the Unions original pro- posa1 of calculating vacations in terms of monthly units was based on system in use by the Company
 at it's Elco Works Division in Bay Onne, New Jersey. But, during the
 process of negotiations, the Union sought the equivalent of the uni form award which has been made
 by this commission and the Ma tional War Labor Board in almost
 every case. The Union is seeking an award of one weeks vacation for one year of service and two
 weeks vacation for five years of service. This is the same award which this commission has been granting in all cases and in support ! of this request, the Union merely cites and places full reliance upon the following decisions by this Commission, viz: Turbine Engineer | ing Corporation, Case No. 25-576D; New York Shipbuilding Corpora ton, Case No. 25-354D; Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Case
 No. 25-319D; Federal Dry Dock and