The sub., 1944-02-17

This leaves remaining, the queS- ton of retroactivity. This com mission has already analysed the question of retroactivity of vaca- tions in the New York Shipbuild- ing Corporation, Case No. 25-354D. The Union has noted carefully the exhaustive discussion in the opin- ion issued in the case. Applying the principles used by the Commission in that case to the factual situation now present, it is readily apparent that this situation is comparable to and should be governed by the re- suits reached by the commission in the Federal, the Bethlehem, and the Maryland Dry Dock cases. Ihls section of the brief has been com menced by quoting in exact lan- guage the wording of the previous contract between the parties on the subject of vacations. An examlna- ton of this wording clearly reveals that the vacation plan and system of the Electric Boat Company have not been prospective, as was the case in the New York Shipbuild1ng Corporation matter. Furthermore, it is a fact that the Union, during all negotiations, sought for. and asked that the vacation changes be made effective in 1943. The Com pany has been on notice of this position since early m the Spring of 1943, because this position was taken by the Union in it's highly publicized platform used in the election campaign with the c. 1. O. The Union platform must have come to the attention of the Com pany long before the proposals were submitted in July, 1943.
 It will also be noted that eligi- bility requirements in the prior contract are determined as of July End in each year, date subsequent and not prior to the expiration of the yearly terms in the agreement.
 It should be noted particularly that the prior contract between the parties make provision only for vacations earned by length of ser- vice up to July 2, 1922.
 In the summer of 1943, while these negotiations were in process, the Company did award to and grant employees having 18 months service as of July 2, 1943, vaca- tions upon the same basis as ex- isted under the old contract which n~rrofrA<1 fC nVsno&n1 a CIR1I0- ton wherein large number of workers who had entered the em- ploy of the Company between Janu- ary 1, 1922, and July l, 1922, com- pleted a year or more of service on July 1, 1943, but received no va- cation time or money whatsoever. In the event that this commission should not make it's decision on this subject of vacations retroactive to July 1, 1943, it would mean that this group of employees will have worked between two and two and one-half years before getting one weeks vacation. Such a result would be entirely out of line with the vacation policy which the Ma tional War Labor Board has ex-
 emplified in innumerable cases. The Union enphatically urges the commission to accomplish justice and fairness to that group of em- ployees who entered the employ of the Company between January 1 and July in the year 1922 and have not had any vacations at all. As stated above, employees hav- ing eighteen months service as of July l, 1943, already received their vacations or money while the con- tract negotiations were pending. The Union acquiesced because to have done otherwise, would have meant that the most desirable vaca- ton season would have gone by be- fore the vacation issue could pos sibly have been settled.
 To summarize the Union vacation