Appendix — Foster v. Dravo Corp.
Supreme Court brief1975
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
pREME COURT, Us & APPENDIX ~ | wv erm E
| /] icHAEL RODAK, JR., CLER
Supreme Court of the United States
. OCTOBER TERM, 1974
.
No. 73-1773
EARL RB. FOSTER,
: Petiti
—Vi—
Dravo CORPORATION
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT,
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED MAY 25, 1974
CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 15, 1974
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1974
No. 73-1773
EARL R. FOSTER,
Petitioner
—Vv.—
DRAVO CORPORATION
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
INDEX TO APPENDIX
Page
Docket Emtries .22....2..0..2.c.ccccccceecceceececcceceeseeeceeeesceeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeneees 1
Complaint 20... ieee ccc eee ccetee cee cece eceteeeeeeceeececensgeenteeeesneees 3
RG) (-) ee 6
Stipulation of Fact _....0.00...0...000 ecco cee eevee eevee ceeeee sees nee 8
Interrogatories answered by Dravo Corporation .................... 12
Collective Bargaining Agreement .................... sesenaceecscesveesseseees 28
District Court proceedings 0... ........cceceecccccc cece cecececeeeeeeceecceeeeeeeee 59
District Court opinion and oré@er ................ [Appendix C to Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari]
Court of Appeals opinion —....0000..0000200 coe... [Appendix A to Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari]
Court of Appeals judgment _..000.0.000... {Appendix B to Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari]
Notice of Appeal 22.2002... cccecccceeeeeteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. 109
Order allowing certiorari .22000.0000000..0 coco ceccceccceeeeeeeeeeeeecveseee 110
1
RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES
PROCEEDINGS
DATE
1971
Aug. 20 Complaint filed
Aug. 23 Summons issued
Aug. 31 Summons returned served on deft. 8/15/71
Sept. 13 Stipulation for extension of time to answer and
proposed order filed.
Sept. 20 Order entered extending time for deft. to »nswer
or otherwise plead until 9-30-71. (Miller, J.)
Sept. 24 ANSWER filed by deft.
1972
Apr. 21 Interrogatories by plf with answers of deft Dravo
Corp. thereon (1-18)
Apr. 28 Order entered transferring case to Wallace S.
Gourley (Miller, J.)
May 4 Order entered Setting Procedure until disposition
of Case. (Gourley, J.)
‘May 4 Order entered fixing non jury trial for 5-30-72 at
10 A.M.; counsel for plft. to file pretrial within
10 days of receipt of this order; coun®*el for deft.
within 15 days and pretrial stip. within 20
days. (Gourley, J.)
May 18 _ Pitf’s Pretrial Stmt filed.
May 19 Deft’s Pretrial Stmt filed.
May 23 Order entered directing that the Non Jury Trial
previously fixed for 5-30-72 at 10 am is con-
tinued until 5-31-72 at 10am. (Gourley, J.)
May 31 Non Jury Trial held before Gourley, J. & Con-
cluded. (Order to be entered) (Ct Rep M.
Brown) (Hearing Memo Filed.)
“oo
2
DATE PROCEEDINGS
1972
May 31 Stipulation of Fact filed by counsel.
June 2 Deft’s pretrial memorandum filed
June 2 Order ent directing briefs befiled. Counsel to sub-
mit to Court before 7/24 suggested findings of
fact and conclusions of law. Reporter to tran-
scribe non jury trial held 5/31 at joint ex-
pense of varties (Gourley, J.)
July 5 Transcript filed re Non “4 trial held 5-31-72 be-
fore Gourley, J. (Rep. M. Brown)
July 28 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by
deft Dravo Corp.
Nov. 6 Opinion filed and Order entered 11-3-72 directing
judgment is hereby entered in favor of the
Deft. Dravo Corporation and against the Plitf.
Earl R. Foster. (Gourley, J.)
Nov. 6 Pursuant to Opinion filed and Order entered on
11-3-72 Judgment is hereby entered as accord-
ingly.
BERNARD SCHAFFLER, CLERK
Nov. 6 Notice Mailed.
Nov. 21 Notice of Appeal filed by pltf.
Nov. 21 Copy of Notice of Appeal mailed U. S. Court of
Appeals; copy of Notice of Appeal mailed to
counsel for deft.; letters to all counsel of Record
and Judge Gourley.
Dec. 18 Original Record and €xhibits mailed U. S. Court
of Appeals.
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
‘Civil Action No. 71-781
EARL R. FOSTER, PLAINTIFF
Vv.
DRAVO CORPORATION, DEFENDANT
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Earl R. Foster, by Richard L. Thornburgh,
United States Attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania for his cause of action alleges that
1) The jurisdiction of this court is based on the pro-
visions of section 9(d) of the Universal Military Training
Service Act, as amended (act of June 24, 1948, c. 625,
section 9; 62 Stat. 614 as amended; 50 U.S.C., App. 459
et seq), hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2) Plaintiff brings this action to require defendant to
accord him vacation entitlement rights which he has
earned and for damages suffered in loss of pay and other
benefits by reasons of defendant's failure and refusal to
accord said rights.
3) The plaintiff is an individual residing at 111 Ram-
sey Avenue, Corapolis, Pennsylvania.
4) Defendant is a corporation doing business and main-
taining offices within the jurisdiction of this Court, spe-
cifically in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
5) The plaintiff was first employed by defendant on
or about August 5, 1965.
6) Plaintiff left his employment with the defendant .
for the purpose of induction into the Armed Forces of
the United States and entered into the Armed Forces
of the United States on or about March 6, 1967.
7) Plaintiff’s position and employment with the de-
fendant at the time he entered military service was one
ether than a temporary position.
4
8) Plaintiff served in said Armed Forces until on or
about October 1, 1968, at which time he was honorably
released therefrom and received a certificate evidencing
satisfactory completion of his military training and
service,
9) Plaintiff complied with all statutory requirements
and conditions for restoration to employment by defend-
ant, including timely \application therefor, and was re-
stored to his pre-service position by the defendant on or
about October 7, 1968.
10) Upon his return from military service and his
restoration to his pre-service position, defendant penalized
plaintiff for his military absence by refusing to recognize
and grant his vacation benefits commensurate with his
length of service in defendant’s employ.
11) Defendant has continuously refused and* now re-
fuses to comply with plaintiff’s demand for proper credit
for vacation benefit:, in violation of the provisions of the
Act.
12) As a result of defendant’s refusal to grant plain-
tiff his proper vacation credit and compensation based
thereon, plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
substantial loss of pay which damage he would not have
suffered if he had been properly and promptly granted the
vacation credits to which he was entitled. ,
WHEREFORE plaintiff respectfully prays:
a) that this Honorable Court adjudge and deeree
that plaintiff is entitled to vacation credits and benefits
commensurate with his seniority.
b) that defendant be ordered to compensate plaintiff
for damages suffered by reason of the loss of pay and
other benefits which would have accrued had he been,
granted proper vacation credit promptly.
_,9:
c) that plaintiff have such other and further relief
that this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.
/8/
Richard L. Thornburgh
United States Attorney
/8/
Blair Griffith
Assistant United States Attorney
Or COUNSEL
/8/
Peter G. Nash
Solicitor of Labor
/s/
Louis Weiner
Regional Solicitor
/8/
Sidney Salkin
Attorney
Jo
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Civil Action No. 71-781 °
[Received Sep. 27, 1971, 10:15 AM, J. S. Attorney’s
Office, Pittsburgh, Pa.]
EARL R FOSTER, PLAINTIFF
vs.
DRAVO CORPORATION, DEFENDANT
ANSWER
AND NOW comes the defendant DRAVO CORPORA-
TION by its counsel, Charles R. Volk and Thorp, Reed
& Armstrong, and answers each paragraph of the Com-
plaint in the above captioned matter as follows:
1. The averments of paragraph 1 are admitted.
2. This paragraph contains the motivations of the
plaintiff which is within his exclusive knowledge. How-
ever, the defendant denies all implications that it has
failed to accord the plaintiff any rights due him.
The averments of paragraph 3 are admitted.
The averments of paragraph 4 are admitted.
The averment of paragraph 5 is admitted.
The averments of paragraph 6 are admitted.
The averment of paragraph 7 is admitted.
The averments of paragraph 8 are admitted.
The averments of paragraph 9 are admitted.
10. The averments of paragraph 10 are denied.
11.: The averments of paragraph 11 are denied.
12. The averments of paragraph 12 are denied.
OS SS a
7
WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that this
Honorable Court dismiss the Complaint and enter judg-
ment for the defendant.
THORP, REED & ARMSTRONG
/s/ Charles R. Volk
Charles R. Volk
Attorneys for defendant
Dravo Corporation
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
- Civil Action No. 71-781
EARL R. FOSTER, PLAINTIFF
Vv.
DRAVO CORPORATION, DEFENDANT
STIPULATION OF FACT
1. Plaintiff was initially employed by the defendant
on or about August 5, 1965, and he remained con-
tinuously employed until he was granted a military leave
of absence by defendant and left his employment on or
about March 6, 1967, for induction into the Armed Forces
of the United States.
2. At the time plaintiff left his employment as afore-
said, he was employed as a scaler (hand brush) at an
hourly rate of $2.62.
3. The aforementioned employment was in an other
than temporary position.
4, Plaintiff served in the Armed Forces until October
1, 1968, and thereafter made timely application to de-
fendant for reinstatement in his employment, and was
restored in his pre-service position by defendant on or
about October 7, 1968, at an hourly rate of $2.92.
5. At all times material hereto, plaintiff’s plant sen-
iority was and is August 5, 1965.
6. By the terms of a collective bargaining agreement
then in force between plaintiff’s collective bargaining
representative, Industrial Union of Marine and Ship
Building Workers of America, Local Union No. 61, AFL-
~"CIO, and defendant, vacation benefits and eligibility
therefor are provided in Article XIV, Sections 1 and 2.
A copy of said provisions of the said collective bargain-
ing agreement are attached hereto and marked Exhibit
9
1. Said collective bargaining agreement and the afore-
mentioned provisions thereof were in effect according to
their respective terms at all times relevant to the present
case.
7. In addition Article X, Section 8 of the aforesaid
agreement provides that “an employee who is granted
a leave of absence shall retain and accumulate seniority
for the period of the leave of absence”.
g. Article XIV defines “Seniority” as “the right of
preference in layoffs or rehiring, measured by length of
service in a job classification at the Heavy Metals Plar*”
and Section 2, lines 5-8 of said agreement provides: ‘Cu.
tinuous employment as used in this Article means con-
tinuous seniority since any break in such seniority caused
by any of the reasons enumerated in Section 7 of Article
X of the agreement.”
Article XIV, Section 1 of the agreement provides that
on the first December 31 of his employment, an em-
ployee receives four hours paid vacation for each month
in which he worked ten days or more; the second De-
cember 31 of continuous employment he received one (1)
week and two (2) days of paid vacation. Progressively
longer paid vacations are awarded up to the 30th year,
always based on years of continuous employment as of
December 31. Article XIV, Section 2 provides that be-
ginning with the second December 31 of employment
and thereafter, in order to qualify. for vacations, an em-
ployee must have “received earnings” in 25 workweeks
in the 12 months immediately preceding the current De-
cember 31. Article XIV, Section 2 (lines 23 through 29),
further provides: “. . . employees who are laid off dur-
ing the year immediately preceding December 31, and
because of such layoff, do not qualify for a vacation
under this section will be given a prorata vacation to
which they might otherwise be entitled on the relation-
ship of the weeks they did work to 25 weeks ... .”.
9. Plaintiff received all vacation benefits due him
for the year 1966 before entering military service on or
about March 6, 1967. In the period from on or about
March 3, 1967, to on or about October, 1968, the plain-
tiff would not have been laid off.
preset PESE Spree
10
10. During the period between on or about March 6,
1967, and October 7, 1968, while the plaintiff was ab
sent in the military service, approximately 12 em-
ployees who were junior to the plaintiff in terms of
plant seniority date and who were not called for in-
duction into the military service, received earnings in
at least 25 workweeks in each of the calendar years 1967
and 1968, and were thereby eligible for vacation benefits.
Said junior employees, the number of workweeks worked,
and the vacation credits received are hereto attached as
stipulation Exhibit 2.
11. Plaintiff’s vacation benefits would have amounted
to 64: hours for the calendar year 1967 and 72 hours for
the calendar year 1968, based on his seniority and length
of continuous service with the defendant.
12. Article V of the aforesaid Agreement recognizes
the Company’s right to discharge or discipline employees
for “proper cause”.
In the event the Court finds for the plaintiff in this
case it is stipulated and agreed that the damages incurred
. and payable to plaintiff by defendant by virtue of de-
fendant’s denial of plaintiff’s vacation pay and other
benefits shall be 377.2.
/8/
Richard L. Thornburgh
United States Attorney
/8/
Blair Griffith
Assistant US Attorney
il
OF COUNSEL
s/
Richard F. Schubert
Solicitor of Labor
/s/ : —
Louis Weiner
Regional Solicitor
/
Sidney Salkin
Attorney
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
THORP, REED & ARMSTRONG
By: /S/
Charles R. Volk, Esquire
2900 Grant Building
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
Attorneys for Defendant
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Civil Action No. 71-781
EARL R. FOSTER, PLAINTIFF
Vv.
DRAVO CORPORATION, DEi ENDANT
INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED BY PLAINTIFF
TO BE ANSWERED BY A RESPONSIBLE OFFICER
OF DRAVO CORPORATION, ENGINEERING WORKS
DIVISION
Now comes Ear! R. Foster, plaintiff in the above styled
action by. his counsel Richard L. Thornburgh, United
States Attor ney for the Western District of Pennsylvania
and requests that defendant corporation, Dravo Corpora-
tion, Engineering Works Division, by an officer compe-
tent to answer on its behalf. answer under oath in ac-
cordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
following interrogatories:
1) State the complete title of plant, urit, and/or di-
vision of Dravo Corporation wherein the plaintiff herein,
Eor! R. Foster. was and is employed.
Engineering Works Division, Paint Department
2) State the name, official title, any job or sub-classi-
fication thereof, salary, grade, and hourly rate paid of
the position held by the plaintiff, as of August 5, 1965.
Sealer (Hand Brush)
$2.47 per hour
3) State the plaintiff’s company, plant, and unit/di-
vision seniority dates as of March 3, 1967.
August 5, 1965
4) State plaintiff’s job seniority date, official title, and
job or sub-classification thereof, salary, grade, and hourly
eo.
13
rate paid of the position held by the plaintiff as of March
3, 1967.
August 5, 1965
Sealer (Hand Brus)
$2.62 per hour as of October 1, 1966—Rate change
due to contractual adjustment.
5) State plaintiff's company, plant, and unit/divisioa
seniority date as of October 7, 1968.
August 5, 1965
6: State the name, official title, and job or sub-classi-
fication thereof, salary, grade, and hourly rate paid of
the position held by the plaintiff as of October 7, 1968.
Sealer (Hand Brush)
$2.92 per hour as of October 7, 1968
7) State the job seniority date of the plaintiff as of
October 7, 1968.
August 5, 1965
8) Who was the vlaintiff’s collective bargaining rep-
resentative during the period from March 3, 1967, to
present?
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Work-
ers of America, Local No. 61, A.F.L.—C.LO.
9) List the complete history of the plaintiff’s employ-
ment by the Dravo Corporation between August 5, 1965,
to present, indicating all positions held (and sub-classi-
fication within any position), the dates attained, the
job classification number, pay grade, and hourly rate
attached to the said positions, dates of layoffs and re-
eall, if any.
Hired August 5, 1965, as Scaler (Hand Brush) at a
rate of $2.47 per hour.
October 1, 1965, Mr. Foster’s hourly rate was advanced
to $2.51 per hour as the result of a contractual ad-
justment.
Mr. Foster requested and was granted a Military Leave
of Absence for the period April 3 to April 30, 1966.
14
May 4, 1966, Mr. Foster returned to active employ-
ment at the same rate of pay and classification as
when he left on the Military Leave of Absence.
October 1, 1966, Mr. Foster’s pay rate advanced to
$2.62 ‘per hour as the result of a contractual wage
adjustment.
March 6, 1967, Mr. Foster requested and was granted
a Military Leave of Absence to commence March 7,
1967.
Mr. Foster returned to active employment on October
7, 1968, as a Sealer (Hand Brush) at a rate of $2.92
per hour.
September 1, 1969, Mr. Foster’s pay rate advanced to
$3.09 per hour as the result of a contractual wage
adjustment.
July 20, 1970, Mr. Foster entered the classification of
2nd class Handyman-Paint at the rate of $3.24 per
hour.
September 1, 1970, Mr. Foster’s pay rate advanced to
$3.40 per hour as the result of a contractual wage
adjustment.
November 23, 1970, Mr. Foster advanced to 1st class
Handyman-Paint at a rate of $3.47 per hour.
June 9, 1971, Mr. Foster was laid off in his Handyman
classification and bumped back to his Scaler classifica-
tion at the rate of $3.24 per hour.
July 9, 1971, Mr. Foster entered the classification of
Rigger, 3rd class, at the rate of $3.63 per hour.
September 1 until October 21, 1971, Mr. Foster was on
strike due to the expiration of the labor agreement with
Local 61.
November 15, 1971, Mr. Foster’s pay rate advanced to
$4.03 per hour as the result | of a contractual wage
adjustment.
15
November 22, 1971, Mr. Foster was advanced to 2nd
class Rigger at a rate of $4.22 per hour.
March 27, 1972, Mr. Foster was advanced to 1st class
Rigger at a rate of $4.47 per hour. This remains his
status at this time.
10) State the number of workweeks worked by the
plaintiff and for which he received earnings from t.¢
defendant in the course of his employment by the de-
fendant, for each calendar year from the period August
5, 1965, through Dece:nber 31, 1968.
1965—22 weeks
1966—47 weeks
1967— 9 weeks
1968—13 weeks
11) Was a seniority roster maintained by the defend-
ant of the unit and/or division of the Dravo Corpora-
tion wher€in the plaintiff, Earl R. Foster, was and is
employed covering the period from on or about August
5, 1965, to December 21, 1968? If so kindly attach a
copy of same.
Yes—Attached
12) During the period from on or about March 3,
1957, to on or about October 7, 1968, list the names and
addresses of all employees of the defendant employed in
the same plant, unit/division, as the plaintiff had been
on March 3, 1967, who were junior in seniority to the
plaintiff.
Attached
13) As to each of the employees named in the an-
swer to the preceding interrogatory state:
a) their seniority dates
b) the number of workweeks worked in which they}
received earnings in their employment by defend-'
ant in each of calendar years 1967 and 1968
c) the number of vacation credits or benefits with,
pay they received in each of the calendar years
1967 and 1968 /
7
;
%
As a
*§
=
4,
De
4
*%
i
#
oA
*
¢
“b
x
e
i
yf
7
— en
16
d) state the dates of layoffs and recall, if any, of
these employees for each of the calendar years 1967
1968
Attached
14) In the period from on or about March 3, 1967, to
on or about October 7, 1968, had the plaintiff not been
absent in the military service, would he have worked
and received earnings therefor in the employment of the
defendant for at least 25 weeks in each of the calendar
years 1967 and 1968.
Yes
15) If your answer to the preceding interrogatory is
in the affirmative, would the plaintiff have accrued vaca-
tion benefits for each of the calendars 1967 and 1968?
If so, compute the specific amount of vacation benefits
and the nature thereof for each of the calendar years
1967 and 1968.
1967—64 hours
1968—72 hours
16) Was there a collective bargaining agreement in
force between plaintiff’s union and the defendant cover-
ing the period March 8, 1967. to October 7, 1968? If so
kindly attach a copy to your answer hereto.
Yes—Attachment (1966-1968 Agreement)
17) In defendant’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint what
are the facts upon which defendant bases its denial of
the avernments of paragraph X of the plaintiff’s com-
plaint?
Plaintiff worked from January 1, 1967 until March
3, 1967 or a total of nine (9) work weeks in 1967. Plain-
tiff then entered military service, returning to defendant’s
employ on October 7, 1968 and continued in such employ
through the end of the vacation eligibility period of De-
eember 31, 1968, or a total of thirteen (13) work weeks
in 1968.
Under Article XIV, Section 2, paragraph one (1) of
the collective bargaining agreement then in effect between
plaintiff’s auth. rized bargaining representative and de-
CASA OA
17
fendant (which agreement is attached hereto in answer
to Interrogatory sixteen (16), any vacation benefits forth-
coming to plaintiff for the year 1969 were contingent
upon plaintiff having met three: criteria:
1. plaintiff must have been continuously employed for
two (2) or more Decemb2r 31st;
2. he must have had senirrity on December 31st of
1969; and
3. he must have received earnings in at least twenty-
five (25) work weeks in the twelve (12) months
immediately preceding December 31st of 1969.
Thus, plaintiff failed to meet the twenty-five (25)
week earnings requirement of the third contingency noted
above and was denied vacation benefits for 1969 for
this reason. Contrary to the allegation of paragraph ten
(10) of plaintiff’s complaint; plaintiff’s military service
was recognized as affording compliance with contingencies
one (1) and two (2) set forth above. Had these two
criteria, based on length of service, been the only criteria
necessary to receive vacation benefits, plaintiff would have
qualified. However, plaintiff failed to qualify for vaca-
tion benefits for he did not satisfy the criteria of cor-
tingency three (8) set forth above. Inasmuch as the
earnings requirement of contingency three (3) is not
an attribute or prerequisite of seniority or length of
service, but rather a qualification based upon time worked
and thus earned toward vacation benefits, defendant was
not obligated to award plaintiff vacation benefits for the
year 1969.
18) In defendant’s answer to plaintiff’s complaint
what are the facts upon which defendant bases its de
nial of the averments of paragraph XII of the plain-
tiff’s complaint?
Please refer to the answer provided for Interrogatory
number seventeen (17).
WPF, GO ae hes il
18
‘9
Richard L. Thornburgh
_ United States Attorney.
Blair Griffith
Assistant US Attorney
SAR BAL RO RN
i OF COUNSEL
/s/ Richard F. Schubert
Richard F. Schubert
Solicitor of Labor
/s/ Louis Weiner
Louis Weiner
Regional Solicitor
/s/ Sidney Salkin
Attorney
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
/s/ Charles A. Patten
Charles A. Patten
Vice President and General
Manager-Engineering Works
Division
DRAVO CORPORATION
19
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY ELEVEN (11)
FOLLOWS THIS PAGE
er CRETE TS aS
20
eer . yy
“SENIORITY REGISTER DRAVO CORPORATION ENGINEERING WORKS DIVISION - NEVILLE ISLAND - AUGUST 1, 1966 | | i
—_—__
‘
| ‘
‘ , j
‘
tHe CHES
RIGGER (CONTD) _ é
[7 |i.” Rueert, velvin b. “TTD 2") aiteaekgs A
www. Kevish, Joserb 4d 1-15-51
we. Sithor, Guido wd cove 11-15-51 RIGCER (CONTINUED)
q wwe Olenik, John oe pei 8-13-51 ] —_ Krobot, Roy J. jel ocan | 4-6-5
G lasme XOrtr2r, Alex seri cove | 11-12-52 4 Scisrretti, Jaxes A. Jr pose ee .
laamwe altonrdsush, Wesley serie 12-B0-s/ 4 poet Millantz, Jcbn M. - 1 ce:
id [ewe Shero, Albert Ieee ceoe | 9-23-52 = [ teoeg Fe, Coavies, Jr. bes ep
ie Weicner, Earcld woot |/2- PS 3 | i, Baker, Andrew R. ‘oes! ep | re
4 fo, Vilezale, mes ye mn ny 6-27-55 “ine Kroll, Jchn. elcome = £-
1
~ eal tse _ Chories 1. | (J coos |
QS O'tRew se,-Vilijas C. Jr 7
r Yost, Paul
T-Sizoatie, Altert B. -
>
s
'
LRG MOORE EE a
@ |= : Spicek, Joseph tT. = wove | YASS. | sess Vreteric, John dr. a ‘oak E 13.
ae Guyeux, John Ca and pues 3-11<57 . ino Seetccher, F Ps 1th J. Jz over) cog (10-25-65 _
‘ : TT ocee Back, Egoert C. Jr. Leeeet covet (3215= —_. - = Grimm, Roncdd el segs Asi.
ws sh Jaras iene: e% wmaacecracd DTt We leer cog | Lhe
(mee. ee se Pte Jares, Winston C. ase ‘eco j9722°57 es 7 es Feber =e © (133 -8-25 :
i Seer BR ieoas has ..ootts Wilscn, Jon=afle A. = _| 8-10-57 4 | meme 7 ae 1 eres ae 6-65 a
! £52CS38) arte % Ont pt : as wee oaeee tee riber : oor, £0 - 5
Sa RICGER 2d scus cvoicn2k, John A. Jr. ae | 7-86-57 " . | news Relic Cc: el, - Blt UW reer, €: ace a ‘
8 ean a eo : Say Benz Foul P lool a 6 . 4 | i mone | Gazvoda, Andrew L. Jr. fever co | 1-3- %
Ary -Snchs, Albert G. J aave — + : =e en 7+1-60 4 Gre Gr rogen, Ei Eévard T. | see’ eoen i iF 5
' — Ves _~ +» } ; 2 OF [anne es yuagiierd, 1 Willian J. | i cece | 7=30-60_! = Sard K. ee | 1-15-66 F 3
es YES OD, Stephen lenge sows. | 573-27 “| { an av lik John +; ne i <> _— "Bo ore, - [ ECT or, Rich ard K. _iseosi ¢ |_ 1-2 *
Cuca, Frenk } ' \7-25-27 ay | -awe = — = : = i oud 1 myers -i.> _— Jebau =: Don nald R. R. sae’ coos | 1-24-66 Bs
ce! ot ES a Lil jmos titer, rt ASB T. -wt\ cove |_| 3-12-60 ma Zieger =< tert J | i es 2-7-€6 i
\. vertiatinatnen lemar! Come at be e.! ee womg = chen chl dA Ln a ' se o.-
“| a 3 be = ky Azarew 1hn29-31 if i3 “* wiliior. mS Thecdore Re “teew'} coos Te 8-22-60 : if fea Net Zs Gey née YN. —_ pon | 4486 a e
| oang tral, i ~ 2 sees wa ay SEL “5-16 oe — sf _—_ Eastoa, a iver cone { S-l2- 60 f Tt Edder, Seb ért H. He —_ isvec! eooe | ~31- ig
pecan, esis ee Jo serataot, Andrew pate 300802607 | ci peataslt donee eles tacaicee—
(aoe cscTalto, > Scsicw _ ener! cae a wast S34 + | |. “s Perri, Vertura - } isS/2- & } } aa a eer a { 5-2 te .
a )sCheen2y ’ Villian j i 10-22-34 oe wr , — , cous. t iL H wows * Routé a Je: 238_& ge yt oe a coos i = _ -4
Tas, oe ye 6 ' \“- Taylor, Taeodere Re lia co| 327-62 _ i Molmar, Esary J. sae! 211-66
EE CEC (|| __tettes, Sureda Gs. dr, ! 3-08-62 — Te posba, Gene Tle | Jedd 65
val TO 5 ancrew ute je ! oc + ~ é HsCasliny | Raytond Le he | ons f 11-8-62 : — _ POUTER
Joe
§ 72 - laukis, Paul ra jever eal 4-8-63 3 agen Derabant, Robert_J. | ~ | be
{ .oy__ BOzba, Berner Le
OEY KM
5 Sis, JOsezB Tw | 6-161 J
=F eee seer. I hadhe63 7 zi _nons Shuttleworth, Is raid Pee come 1210-65 _
Kress, Jeseph J. LS | 2-5-6 SCALER - BAND BRUSH
'
pa)
5
’
oc
«r-* f
ee ame ented eames basin
'
> 42 —y i
via
{
i
"4 Jew
v
lad
<
4
4
h
vy
At
|
+
the
°o
'
N
wn
si
——L. ct sees = . tt . cone
ex - ve T Ts } or rt aneee ——— - - —_ 7 ——— 7 =
& + Cerzle, Williss jeseferse [21-25-42 } | lew, aed fferan, Taeras W. wl coe T2-10-Bi " ra. Gallic, Gecrse JY. 15-25-25
x — a pe —--—vy ; ; - jer} ! . J_ise a 2.
Hi i-m GbE, Eaverd lowes! cove hr -30-ke q 2. Sterhen-, Richer 2 lececl ease 1-11-65" .o ut orticz, Sonn es | 2-26 ~i 3-26-29 3
& Shrerd ? } | “1 DoS. 1 —— a o; Ty peer ee eens & err
ae neriff, Feymand L. ere coee | 2e15-4 (TT... Francis, Rotart R. ‘ewe coo 2eLL965 ijl, -Macejovsiy, Joseph ‘snarl eves | 4 -12-29
x apo y f 2 oh 4 - ;. - ioe atte amine 1 - —_——s nT is paseo : . —_— :
is anes ¥acorarek, Bercard etter cows ‘2 14-43" if wowge M0133 oe, es a on eee | “11-65 it | dcrenin, dnirew snl cove | 1029-29
4 ad ae | : : : a Pa - eg omental - =
> rferman, Crerics A os i-70-434 . =< {; le 105 i aoe Burzrcimty = | : lcelewee | STENT 4
af gicy, Howie. I Late ; ryen66 3 a eee
2 . =fY, FRACms ee ee — 3 rervece | ATSLNOD Lt i nswe Carsca, Sorac3 = is it quve Wee ’
‘
® |
?- -
- . —_ as aad
_™ ere OD a ”
~ . x
ae oa . . ae ie ia) eee = Sere ee as
21
SENIORITY REGISTER DRAVO CORPORATION ENGINEERING WORKS DIVISION - NEVILLE ISLAND - AUGUST 1, 1966
——
as .
SCALER-EAZD BRUSH —_ “us & e's y
aoe iss; eed cons [6-28-38 an .
= I seer come | 8-20-34 SCALER-BAID BRUSZ (CONTINUED
“Sashs, Aaircu oF 10-23-35 — SCALER-DAUD BYOSE (CCoTD) ag muss Sauna )
STevits, rats. J... | 3-15-38 wx_Sicher, Guido Le Nel eage | 2-262K6 a
i
i
aad
— =. Smith, Rorsald Pp. \.ned cooe
Passa, Josa dc leo | D7OD=39 eT Ealloway, Aibart lcs 7
1-20-47 - — TT
= —— = = ha wace msolo, Pps ewtro tor cooe
. *oetvits, fomst lowes! coos $-2-36 1 Riv StS) Leo FP. lass sees [“ warner wold, Fonry As [=
seers Atoice D. lool com | 0218-36! TT ¢
Tost, Tuctat J. seleces | 6-25-36
’
«
*
i
‘
a: ei
| }—,
Cyvryeh, tite=acl 2 A.
|
Caspolonz, Resort C. I...! 9-11-67 rr Seed
__ltxori coor : : om i eases Oliver Robert A A. leace c->e
12-27-48 - | [eave Jackson, Kenneth D. pg
Seta <a ews | 126-37 fcylor, Charies Ae _ voles | PrLI“GD = 7) Sneler. _Bobert. Je a
Ti2t=o sees} dlls 9-30-39
free ? ict “a, 2 aa D. eee
ween nw paw ene
i | la Tebel i -29 J aan .
i lnes Stevo, Georze ___"hradeces |O-2999 (ape Eitdests, Jeon, Me lewd | 3-9-65
12-10-39 . -) tmecs oS Lester J. ~\sael gouy | Pe ae ee Sentiili, Dnio tad care |
“Estate, Z>2 Td David \nelesse | 5-18-40 bi jewee Diechnies, D232 Ln ee 9-15-50 ii na Farere oa © ie Mh ey
Siiss, Gasce Je Vesdecs [1-2 9-EO Arcola, Villien Te cl cece | 2-22-51 tive Hubos, Willian We deed cece | 48-65
Zadr, Sckesl Jones | TO-24-h0 Fant, Josepa _. col sors |_12-7°55_ cs Cilchriet, Brot ra [jt 4212-65 :
e ay, Jor-2nh — ~ ho coz 1-20-42 — arch, _ Str Res Ga __prol somt { 5-17-56 |: ; * | nes Renezir, Stern 2a ?. Jr. “4 cree ] 5-Do- “4 Ss.
{ | flr r | 5-4+-L2 orden, Eorold Re iol ea _€-14-56! rl; Hila debrand Robert W. Loe! es | B-k- 65__
{jw Stlvas, George sees! cove sant, feel 7. Lyons; | tj Set cae ee
{ ones void, Suvard seer coe /§-21-h2 «JO Cas i ane Oe ON Ee H eee “Fos ster, Earl R. hn cous 18-52-65. A
i Daler a. ~ 4 8-29-h2 ae ee vthaseclck ee ek a aS i ae) ie [ase ‘Mells, Eaywocd = aay 1 9-15-55 4
ose A, Jecept ere sone | } [ visusy, _vohn A. _Jr. swell coos | 3 5-57 ‘ : : . —— VOe1 5
{ ‘Cristea, gobo | 1 9-15-h2 bd Lovee SP LS43 a 22s ar wien: Stri bling, Re pb SE 0 ine! ewes! 5-5
= ane oe ma ut iS wea __Procperd, 4 » Acthoay Ve Teel cowe Ree - #4] Te pentin£, Dantel lice! odes , ed b ad Oe
j wos V2Te Tiie tree! cove on 1 9-Bb N25 I . Francis, “Rotert Re [.ntd core | ~ 3-29-60 ri | see et aaa Je sacl com | 10-26-05 og
1 Lea eo ap hele —- | Schwab, _fidert S. Ke ee 15-260, _ , . ‘Siters, Rayrond Ae hd esge |? 19°27 65
Ble RB, Fate baeteces 1 23-83 pee cent sel, Thewas Go Ma, | 6-13-80 cyt pethews, Keita We teclace? LlebOS
th es orge A. selene | 2217-43 | ou omnes me Damien (yas mj tens 2 xo
it . 31 G20 ree 2 — Battles, Charlie G,__luv sen H0-28-60__ 1 | | eve Wilezak.. Stenkea J... _yre aa 11-35-68
“TA - “netine .
ilu Diarta 2, Fobert | =e 3-1-4543; Jensins, Janes E,__ wcee Ls Hens Honee vith. Sesak d= eee
3
—
n |
$
_— a
|
6.18
“4
oO
*
,
{1222665 _
_ Schollaers, “Keareth AL het eee! T11-17-655
"1-20-64
-
4 _ = “0 = a
J. csceb,. Jia (ler 473-83 cat, Vedd Foon | 12-7-60_ tj
Sic mei ee - ~ H
d Mises Sens, redte Cc. ses —_Lened cone 5-17-43 — G iidre dad ae Gerald Pe : | 33-7-60_ z= cea 2 Jackson, an TCS preteens
Lt | -L>: 223, ce thro Pp. Lod cove | 5-24-43 . _2i- =Sy robert Se espe Sheree want lynch, F Robert | C. Neesl vous
‘gt ; 7 Seam. Des _o { . Y-2. = i ae | i
a SoGRy rattaew Ne 7 ike ny | i \. 17-44 er ee =i y fe Be eres gost = G/ + ie Pr. Sal th, _Ceorge. Pe teen |
j = - Bi SOR, Suns | | = } 20-19-44 . Stir. sswty ASP lesen coos | 6220-63 | { cee Steeles Clarence ‘ce cone |
LS ee es seer ce * weve ——— =" — =. = ~ A a i : . <= —— — -,--<
! waee Cre, 22% “Robert | |... coos | 4elb-45 to sree eel che vc O23 5+ eect alae ae bb wees “y ria, bie oohS mie 2s *___ oer, 1008
. - Cstizy 4 % tea } ' | 126225 i re V 5 ea ifan R. - - 1 dees 3 ye — M 2Cx ) lleush Yowar S ie
Sst pi 5 ats t+er' coos ee a :* -8. - _ = ee { ( 3-3-6 { - : $9 = a
ones Little jen La, 7 Re Trond cece | d=) o°4 Pt fe Eozie, vominie __ lseneheoee | 4 Lp | wane MS Hie dward C. C. Teel cone
f_
~ -- _ ” a 2
: tpl
7
12-13-95:
whet ne eT nculbstan
RIGGER
. —— SR ea ee en Ce |
—— Froak. a 2 oe a Tit -
“o_ ae,
223F, —-— 2 "6 la acel exe
} = marae anerzw bese’ :
‘foe Seu, AETISE ____ st eeedcomn 4 5716-33
AF Te. Dre-alio, Sates _— $-18-35.§
—=, @scr ce *. ,
i
——
owe
* Oe ees ee
~ i
‘jy « Yurks, rarsrcr. ples 3
tae Tee! wn | O-15-MIT=
Clim Matters, Peara owleors [LO-C5UL ~
iti, peeterald, Valter [Jo | 723-2
¢! a FUCRS, Alva SG. . |= 11-18-42"
,t 4, ieSorkle, Ulises . “Tee} cows [12-25-42
M1 lowe, _ Old, Etzerd Jen! eam [L2-30-82 3
Se “iN easay:
tH fo, _Koez=arek, | Bercsrd_ lave ewe , 1oetseb3
He
=e - <
O-Tenaun, Charles A. Ln! coos | 1171O-47-
, Lelisy, Biccard C2 laser ree (LLLT-HT ?
rs 23% = a. talvin L. lcuwl eres | j 11-22-2497
7 dass sees. [h. 15-51
p
“Ole
i
Seger
Qleatk, Joba Imelece, |3-13-51__
Rortc:r, Al-x cs desed cone | 11-22-51"
Shoo, Albert tee case | 9-23-52 =
ee Es t2~-32973Q
Usidecr, terold cc. l, one 5g]
Cesley Las, com
-Spicst:, Siszph-?. Joe coos | 2-7F FO
Suyaus, <¢b9 C. lenist nase | S920 857
Seth, Srcaet Co Sr. TT 015-57 |
S tegaeag, heasen — acter [D-22°57 3
see esa, Vemete 8. 4210057 2
tee) Th tks Cratos. Ly t8-57-
eA DT CULPSRATIOM ELGHHELK EGS EK DEN
vilbaie
m7 eka
.iratre L,
t...! com Wao: 063
l' tae oe TET, 2 are vale 7036-50 4
Lo [e perbis ona Dene | b1-80 4
' mee SF Sean =8 ———— sea =pricpae 1-50 xt
: ore ii2t5 &— 26 so ser! cove Bo1Do66 |
SH nees UiISS* te TrAS2Ore Ry ‘sveleeea | Ce 22260 ©
aata “af ‘
L' Jaeeg FoSetay DOr yor! cons {9212-00
Je] ue Porshsas. = ml wee | 40225260 3
EL Joona SFE ee ae
rit. tes, roriis 6. Jr. lo)... | 3- oe
i. — Se aa eee
Fife FSFE, Vostora ~ = hepleoog | S77 CSTE 2:
i : on wzeSci By niyTs33 L. (nel ooce 13-86-62 } a.
1 Simone t sa. Powl PF I: incon! coos 4 b-be64
4 Sf -nwe
iow 44
J-5-5h
| 2-20-64
{lien
! | oem $ > So oahona, BL tsk Re ose cert 22
ea: Sac >t wg 3 nV Rate ~t, R, it zor So0t | 1-11-65
Tse 40th oF. Fe least ges H 1-11-65
a
¢
ny — : ee
: : = - esac -- ; ONS ord G. ee FS
van
‘nev43s Re Sri. foot i- 11-65
oy Js |e evoe | k- 6-05
ti, Juses A. Imi, | b-12-65 .
Jonn Me bate | 4-25-6 :
TRe ei ceon | T2065
Jeha Jr. wee ence i 9213-65
: awic sty t. JY. seer
NO Ag
rs
5
iga J. Jr. |
age)
’ coos q
| 22-6-65.
Poland e-
Hidtible
SO ie Ramey)
oe
,
RIGCIR (COnT'pd)
ie ran a.
J 7)
“644.
ays
ome ° Sa a oe .
FIT vcae Ay
Eurr: zoel, Deaiel G.
pen pany
rt
oe ;
cu leewy SOL, Jehan oe
_
Ford: - ig T2274 asict P.
6.12
: tee . T.vior =f J Jott A. e 9-19-56 +
1 + dems GObteci, Kernath W. Lt. |it-ci-so 2
aoe OFies, Pood 13-2:-6
Pshert
a4 + -T, se”
i bs Roe wi: on. a
catiuee
lve! sone |_5-6-35
, aA ©
| Sheaes Dersttut. Fobert J.
t
'
.<
us + anes S
sobtloes4 parca 2 Lieve! cows i 1-106
SCALER (20D ERUSH)
ei et Coos ee Poeeeee oS
2. es ee Leelee | 3-29-29 |
flo a ees Mitesh Ves | b-12-29
Vices wether ees eed ewes | LO-G-29
5-21-30
522-38
Lj newe eee le cove Nee
i ae eee Gale he hewticen | (7S 7
gk ena yaaa al FE
it [ee = efits, real. [| S-D
{di ecvits, Avast nee! eve | 6-235
f Venee DOM, AMetes De Iles [0-18-35
fi fl fest, Devs9 J. Veeleon (6-25-36 __
Pit eseg Evi, se33 ‘mee cwee |_32-5-37
Dag Ole es ee TS to. | Sebeee)
Ope eee, eS. La
Ltesce BeCulersh, B.D, land eee [Pay OMG O
ae Ee Pe ees Ae ee hoot cone OnE daRD “A
a es 7 ‘Lowel owe [Le ZI—W2 ; “aa
‘
2
a
, S .
ao COMER (EAD BRUSH) (corr*p)
: ] =o SATIS 5 - SS 2 ~ , rr 132 ae
+3 a SS. ene ~.. (B21
23 - pa! S atop fwerl cogs = .
9-15-42 ©
10-25-52 |
ws CES, SED ona
- Fawn. > TF
os oTin. Y: ayers =. Meal alge
JETS, Frilsp loot ener | 2-8-43
= cc once A. Ll 2-17-43
wiSii~2, Robert
aotie C.
ia { a3 3
lense! cone | 5- l7~ 43
ent ke)
ae ee
lone Lovie, Jethro P. el 5-2 43
Ces':, aay | Pher7ebh j
Grorsy Actert
C.ws, Poitea
et Bota R. | 1-15
T -
\
a ees A.
Phelan at en _ : -)' 22 -
am + ee eS de seer coms 5 7-39 ~
P Saw es ia atts - t Awe
4 wer ep CLA 2. -e ord oe ol ~72
Vwermtiventes RECEP HR YVHATY UVR YUAN EVIE Between
‘sp
wrwene wee ew et wee bod tw Pt eK &
-
SCALER (HACD BRUSH) (co:7r'D
~ Fost, Paul W° woe! coun
maet ee Jets & eee IT. ais) aoe 3-25-57 :
sveri, Actiery Ve | i] =!
—T robert Re Tne | 2-29-60
Se. hy Alszxt Ss. Jr. a 522-50
re
———_ or
,
.
i
<_<
'
>
'
.
pee mo Sy ce yee- sre way
eae a oe ee 2
i == Pritt 3s, C C><. rlic C. — Teceol coor 24-60
f } : sae Jeva Jones. v7 dad cone 11-4-60 :
i ee sy Sp 1: 241 tenes coos 1-7-9 ‘
«
Cailéross, Corala Le hleoe | LL-7 $
ser) coot -2- :
rap, Foul 8.
Fe fess SCh=urey John 8. em ee
a em 1-15-64 |
‘1 Juve Felix, Addon R. | eleoee | 372°Oh
ii}, Eecle, Decinte weed cove | 37 370%
0, Keuvoras, Jones N. veco cone | 1-20-65 ~
Pits, Satth, Fonald p. so cam 1-25-55
\- - Cunsolo, Pietro Need ee (228-55
tte Fetlirski, Kenry_A. es acl | | 2- 10-65
5 Teen, Oliver, Robert A. mane ob -65
pt fi. Jackson Kenneth D De | ost coee | 2 2-25-65 _
{
ie
J... Sneler, Robert cP lee cone | 2-25 65 3
Vet lantey “John | Mo ie ee
Ssatilli, Ennio. 2-20-65 1
aeme Farrrg. Pp r) Fr mee cows
b
Sa
Sy Villian ive
* tice Hubb
7 rs ;
Wid tohrist, | John A.
bees cheese rand, PF robert We ae coos |
a ctrl R.
SVR = MAYwUUV te eoue
n (2 aa) {oo ote
AMEE ASE, ROR TCS RE
; t we wowe Sot : a a
| eg neon “ly Roald Je ers Se St
: [i tatthevc, Traits v. — tn] 1-1-65
as trot som = aso
Tensrri teh. “ueme F
_ ersue
| STIS, fe: ort G.
oe | ee
tt eewe CCU Acuvy § temard S.
jooee!
j
SU Dg Miller, Ezrd C
jo oem
Sy ie
eg Soe. re dec.
9
>
».
i)
is
Sheed
aoe Srerc ’ to-sred W —— 1 Qe! oa
me Sitters seas! axon
ar _ Torre = 924
to nous - rT; Jo= 2: coos 10-31-72,
Vfewne Hareceini, ronald Fo Lele [UI-9-Ze
Lf beona £85" By Silty ci 1123-68,
Es. hess: 364
OTT ae Wretee, Sona Jr.
[nove Berscry Caarles Se
eae St. Clotr,
Fifits, joha t P. .
Ferd Tea at oe = sre 2
TS ee
2. asa, 'Scbse] Jr. heel cose | 12-12-63
1 7neee Jodisard, tichoe) Jy
- Hey re | mas »
yo 7L- bats ai *dv2d wets or Ge Toe
e { wee 8 a anaes 2 :
i [nace vi ~~ eet * - . ‘oe t
M cane E2lte.: rie ree re ort cme
eves _ C1200 914, io sds
aw Stey242 nos wid fo
a tioylae ‘thes72 7 JR
ARSON SE Ca SAIGON 3 8 . -
‘ 7 » . Dich PEAR ae Bee ACN ere eet _)
24
SENIORITY REGISTER DRAVO CORPORATION ENGINEERING WORKS DIVISION - HEAVY METALS - AUGUST 1, 1968
» . . _——”,
Budak, Frask | save 7-25-27 RIGSER (CONT'D)
__Purnscosky, Andrew | re 4-29-31 _ RIGCER (CONT'D) . ie, am Bows, M0722 Ie... ivoplsoe 5-i-
scoe 5226-33. * ( r » [63548, Pose J. s Jeui-
a ~ pave dveclierti, "4005 ea J, | eos} soos -36-66 . CL) J aes So : ~s,Sees 4-5 OO -
{ vq __Dremllo, !anslow fete G-18-34 _ { Pavlik. Abn D \ nes! cone | Bed ehO ‘Kvn SOltrea, H4ehsad Ay Te
3
| et rand eves | 5=3-27 ;
|
its, Coer: Cs or: oe 5-16-36 nae a ne~s eee a. fein Se | | J o aL . ~=*, § | woes Teylor, Janes A. ‘sees se | 1 _
~ Yurze, Andrew Jr. | | Lbs Mar, 8 2. seer cone | B1B-60 _
asug “2, Some — .--~om -
A Se=a, Joseph : seed nar 8-16 bi } Paalaw Maal lees cnae 6.24.44 ; OUTER =
_ Satters, Ea-ard t=" £228 10-25-41 L- — “Pauatank. Patures | eee coos $A5L 44H ms Ctr ii Nrwbrat, Pobsyt Je oP soos 5<6+85 .
| Rectenwald, Valter pony cons 7-2-42 nL mylar, ant axa P, Teas! aes 427662 movg Sheet te deeeapth Tedd a pale 4
ry “es AV 4snn ft. Cae ors R, od 8~22-66 #| laces xroll, gona leew cose | - 5-6)
* : rym | hip pt! . ante a | 35, LD meen LOMA, Pt ed Helios! ewes | 094-47
me Buche, Albert Co ws cone} ttt fee taetet abin Ga Ie, ears} SALAS SCAIER (12ND BRUSH)
t
‘} i" i Cercle, Willéss -les 11-25-52 ' | auld s - arht ~
os ers. wezj cone 7 7 ' | wae . aire *l ve - ron : ; or a ee woe
saves: VEtes Bere a. cane {22-5942 _- itt soa Fad Lh seat athnd 3 ge Pere a ee ee ee
Nin. = vovuesd Le brent cove 2015-43 #7 “Ps=r4 x Ce 73 — ened ee oh F23 4 , to Poutiek, gos = 3-25-29 ¢
we —aregearah, Perrend Let [S-1bS SL F2ert duct SS LP-LS. Wt ee ee CE
sone o> -*+ = - =, Dorr: rd oN entero"! COCO Ne oe eee { { lena Sans “St aed 4 5.6.44 ; 1 woue L e. ? Uwe = cose g
7 = i lp). 722 ste s. a T 7). { sevemcsa, ASC gece | 1029-29 :
7 ms Late: Ricmrd c. . d +2. u 1T7 tf oe 48 % css ty a i d.4A./ \, |. -s 2, lee * £ere -
a! ft 7 a Charles A. |. | mi 1-10- on Ak 2 Se yt | Yeil 65 re | Purana, zy ncrey TT. 5-21-20 ‘
eet Cps erran, r o frecle oe fl . Stoaben nS, THebint ee pire see : : ; rae Aa | 2 tore! eros F 3
: Rumvert, ielvia L. ad | 1-23-49- |
is wevish, Joseph faacet =k [2-25-51 _ Ito vm am - Tae
= 8 ener pickas Bs - lecel eng | 1-15-54 | rT... Poughcrce.) tee asd 6, ere | 3=91465 © ea ORR ere SS head e cpe 20-23-35 *
pt - | 12
3 = At ‘tenth, Utohy ‘ener! cove | 8-5 3-51 SP PEEGJebstobe roy aoe
. + —_ = peutic
Tortear, Alcx 1 11-22-31 Leong Soto orathd, F728 Ae Mees core | bai d-65 fd tee Odio rit, Pronk J.
7 Sewn pyvawssta f ; £->s -
: 1 ' ? ‘ : . «
| | meme Sk: ery Aloert - paar ome i aS bet navn it Lirnia. Sahn Sh T = ss T bed RAS . H } mwawe -.- avits, Aur. LS j -0r croe 16-2056
i... Yoltortsu a, vestey ! |! 1412-20-43 weg 7 raw, Atte? R, rt oes T29=25_ TP Pattaeel atti oT. J one | 0218-35
- —_-k- 4 - * f = : > 2 ra
Lbaue 2hGcer, Fszcl@ c. |. Ve P50 ces tees TEN Tey elas | Cab 05 7. Ore eee Ted eins 15-25-38
| : ‘ { if 5
: 4 £708 —_ -37
1 ot
Getay, Jahn 6, oat 11-57 — Ree peice SS oe pany nace 2101-69 rare er
k, Sscurt C. Jr T. “t 2 4el5257_- Te Betis 7s beeh W seer cone a wwren a Meksi2, C27rd David fn, | 5-14-40
Seek, Ecc: . esce ao mowe =
je $2233, Hinrtss © EE ET, | teens Gerven, oo A Te L Af ge ueeds Cakes de tog Ce
| fo, Yilsen, Johnnte 4A, st eieest lees tthtat, ed Be sre seet 1=2h-66 Lo esir, fell aeeg ‘923
Saiscak, Jona A. Jr. ew cee) _J2'd-57 _ 4 levee MELT, GTS He ae tees Fu +b 66 eee MOD Dewsth. Poo. aoe core -/90-°9)
Spicak, Jozsph T. ‘esetl cous J 204 G TE Chg atcha soc, Rae e, :: <.sce a coon 2° “31-66 p-——:~ oe 2 | none COLY, s¢sita ae ae aay 2 <0 -4e
ny ——
° -* 7 .
DAE ES I ARIS FER IE te I be pe SERA HO TR AOA, Ace PATEL SRT TIO DL AMP ES Se RAR LE RADE AD TE A
25
,) SENIORITY REGISTER DRAVO CORPORATION ENGINEERING WORKS DIVISION - HEAVY METALS - AUGUST 1, 1968
et? ¢ ie . ————
: SCALER (HAITD BRUSH) (CONT'D)
anak ’
SCALER (HAND BRUSH) (CowT'D) + gare pa ke ry aot se
Pao WA a mere OF Ge ae - e J rr a
. te lteds PEF ae 5.10 §-20-42 | ) newe _FE9° sory bee FV Vo eel goes 2
j
|
I
a
Dy orei9, Sort f 3-25-50
Tomes CFaCEray © me 9-25-h2 es ee ee ee SCALER (42D ERUSH) (CONT'D)
1} | Srris iS btotal | 5. pan Lo-co-L2 .. ] j neue £s. ans 2a oe Ad Jr. = 322-69 aie ed bee Tr Pein a ay 4 : .
= : neue g2v)22. 6 “s1%0 C. - on 8 ° a a ALASE. Bane ! cael _ 1A bf 4s ‘
Lr) wees DS a sett <rk \_| meee “4.n22's Sterh-n peso 4468
nes! seer Aha
cr
—~y
Satlin
neue
4 ‘ wa-04
: MingaAva Prvart seer] coos | 2.
‘ t
iy $ °. ace oe 1.” ‘iS ;
Lf meen 7 — _ a Loe se ond Back . , * Vs carol} as “, fide Jobel R lope! | ei | 44 iS £5 hf
Sles =, tc £425 c. seer! core 5-17-43 ' 412. Dicy toomwld Le [a 11-7-50 oe we fh , | 4 4 §
He y :
gd |
; )
e ¢ n —, La mos ™ 00 po oa
§ | mens Li-"it, dot3 2P:_ - == poner, Seek roi i. SA le, raul Lf. ane < SSh ens Saat} %
a gets » tatthou 4. levee’ 217 , = emia F ‘. atic Att oun tte: ator | £ levee go-e | } + a4 . F
work reos - kp a gn ot s. | | 1415-64 _ {A . ns | 1 y
ft asee aT Caney ‘sees. Cove 134-1 bh { _ rode, ae ante er 3-39-54 . i we ce =r f a badta£6 N
Ke mm : . <= A. ee se | 14-55-64 N
‘Sess W4 sik akg Pe eg ei |e cove 1-26-45 ah nearer cous [itp tsaiud. Panedd Pp sesh coon. | > bea 4
: i 1
Crorsy notsrt “Voeedd od 16-45
— -
ees i, Feitea om ee 1-9-!6 T
nou —s =f aya | 2 a] 1915-95 Pres t L +f aren 2. and 4 2. vere <ove 4 55.65 ° “bag Sohn te Ved ' yes
ae rit wae ac tna, eons Re - } ! 2 = .
aoe naee LOA IANIN, St ASeen =e D8: 66 te wee SOCTOW, Fitird W. sslcom |[/2- + - 44
toot
asue aa, Cuico L. coos
Talte.ty, Attest
|
2 z
je) ots ° | A
j Lissa tn rena ha Bors Ay ser cont | pate ju St inte, teed tel coe | 1D eb KL
Li |
—
\,
Leal
r° (1h. arty Robert Ay pestaaee 222).-65 reve Teh Yaaihd tfatss) pe - ct oce| 13. 14.55
- wh" Ti a aes
222% 28) 6288 hee
Cootclt, ccsoet Ce 1 | Selle = = =.
EES : TT e 7 1 neve Sesta, Tree revel cose | 2035065 | teswe BEllO.2, fAthony cee ‘coos | 1-13-67
Pre we ae ts “Cy cob t. 21 A. seer: Coe 12-27-48 u n | } 4
s ¥ aie Lar ar eens T. ‘enor, cues 5256-65 id *
&
|
~- +4
a Fir y toh 73 Ae err eros E94 mtr Rew! ld cone if 420.65
TT
~
im - jn oP Etoc4ca Pr, tre ser! cave Is- 20 -47_
qe
[..
_ Sitters, 200d be decree | PIS
move ASTI P90 lane, core 4-16-65 kde 1 Co aRL So ae
a) Sadie Mad are | wr h cosh cone b4nB-65 Tt a SCAR. 4 i: ‘uel A. cs pee ’ bobott
'
|
¥ j
a an GE cet sri cco: | VO oes - !
res t4 et BA ake ‘.. aps es YA-4 6-49, 1 | sews - Ae Be
+e ; eT a i) 9) ann tpt ae 222 3250_ : a Tha, MNEs oT , Le {8.66 |... Lays ahtas sevin B. sn b-
Zerole, | 44 tas 3s T. pi 3) ‘ bose t “. aa oon A, a 012-65 _ [a a et tyane, Cipey - Seiee
tere mau. Jese7h ae le eos 24 ss : nor 22, Mobort t.. “9 Sonera y ae tesa a ee
| 522 bad ht ‘hee Pp Ly TAs) o. 4 core Vien: As Y; Jul ius ss J. _yte’
etl
a See Ter a
le fom Org oe rap ao
Lt Legep Garena, Eu old ‘eee! cous Lae cS 1. tthe Mowpad | an ee \ bab eh5 — ‘Salstig, Ron D. — Teale. ; = 19-68 7
—
me te pre me ree cme ee me A
f°n nts set
two
|
So
'
] o-
“—
wo
ONS Lm am eee
fa ‘
ea
4
\
ete Ce ecient, )
. “ * ii Weal as * :
at BE Mgt sal ° B
%
hal
26
7
om pene: 9 02 2 omer TOES mummies REL ead ates, COT mate
quisTIcH #12 = USE 1st 2 COLUMNS : a
QUESTICH #13 = USE REMAINING COLUMNS
WEEKS VACATION LO = LAYOFF D-DIS
NAME ADDRESS >a | __ WORKED CREDITS RH = REHIRE
(1967 [1968 (1967 T1908 | Q_- ouIT
Wells, Haywood 4 1517 M, Homewood Ave., 9-15-65 n. 64 Q - 8-59-68
a sed Pittsburgh, Pa. 15208 ¥s
22 Strib?ing, Ralph Jr. | 826 \hiteside Rd. 10-18-65 | 51 | 49 | 64 | 76
a2 pittsburgh, Pa. 15219
“~~ é ° F
re Eneloff, Ronald J. 2010} Forbes Ave. 10-26-65 46 | bo | && | 2
->aQa Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219 .
i.
a : ui Wilezak, Stephen J. 1887 Oakbine Ave. 11-15-65 51 48 64 T2
. é O Coraopolis, Pa. 15108 ° '
< : ‘
a a Du lynch, Robert G. 1134 Wayne Ave. 12-13-65 46 64 72
) a 2 ‘ MeKees Rocks, Pa. 15136 - |
OZ o,f
eee McCullough, Howard’ 8, | 800 Dowell Ave. 4-28-66 | 51 | 49 | 56 | 6h, | |
9 - © | : Monaca, Pa. . ;
= S x Robinson, Sherwood | 1046 Broadview Dr. . 9-12-66 * | 41 56 : D - 2-21-68 . ‘
i) tJ < Pittsburgh, Pa. 15207
> ;
Z < = Sperow, Edward 148 Williem Circle 9-13-66 50 | 56 Traneferred Salary 6-21-68
ro) at MeKees Rocks, Pa. 15136
eo . .
nZ Pander, Gerald J. 3429 California Ave. - |. 9-19-66 52 56 ‘1 Q = 1-26-68
fi . Pittsburgh, Pa. 15212
=H : .
Bs Maraccini, Ronald F. | 124 Sebring Ave. 11-09-66 52 ko 56 | 64 |LO 12-5-67, RH 2-5-68, LO 4-5-68
< x Pittsburgh, Pa. 15216 | RH 5-13-68
Jablonski, Michael Jr.|25 Highland Ave. — ' | 12-12-66 45 | 31 IO 7-13-67, RH 8-22-67, LO 12-6-¢
Purgettstown, Pa. RH 5-15-68
Belloma, Anthony J-1 Neville Manor - 12-13-6 41 30 56 60 |L0 4-14-67, PH 4-24-67, LO 7-5-67
7 Pittsburgh, Pa. 15225 RH 9-5-67, LO 10-13-67, RH 5-20-64
i . oe sis Mae
| —
—______.
27
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES SIXTEEN (16)
IS PROVIDED BY THE AGREEMENT
ATTACHED TO THIS PAGE
~
$
$
%
28
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
DRAVO CORPORATION
Engineering Works Division
Neville Island
Heavy Metals Plant
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15225
AND
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE
AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS
OF. AMERICA
Local Union No. 61, A.F.L.-C.I.0O.
(Union Label)
1966-1968
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, executed this 7th day of October, ©
1966, is entered into by and among ENGINEERING WORKS
DIVISION OF DRAVO CORPORATION at its Neville Island
Heavy Metals Plant, its successors or assigns, herein-
after referred to as the “Company”, party of the first
part, and the INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIP-
BUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L.-C.I.0., and the
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA, A.F.L.-C.1.0., LOCAL No. 61, both act-
ing for and on behalf of themselves and LOCAL 61 mem-
bers, present and future, in the employ of the company,
hereinafter referred to as the “Union,” party of the
second part.
29
ARTICLE I
INTENT
It is the intent and purpose of the parties hereto
that this Agreement will promote and improve indus-
trial and economic relationships between the employees
and the Company, and will set forth herein the basic
agreement covering rates of pay, hours of work, and
conditions of employment to be observed between the
parties hereto.
* * * *
ARTICLE V
DISCHARGE OF EMPLOYEES
Section 1
The right to discharge or discipline employees shall be
the prerogative of the Company, except that no discharge
or disciplinary action shall be made without proper cause.
‘Section 2
Violations of the Plant Regulations, as written by the
Company, is considered by the Company to be within the
meaning of “proper cause.” The Union does not partici-
pate in making these rules, therefore, it reserves the
right to contest discharge cases arising out of the appli-
cation of the rules and whether action taken under said
rules constitutes proper cause.
All discharges or disciplinary actions arising under
the terms of this Agreement are subject to the grievance
procedure, including arbitration.
Section 3
Whenever an employee is suspended or discharged, the
Industrial Relations Department shall so notify the em-
ployee’s Union representative before the employee ac-
tually leaves the plant.
* * * *
30
ARTICLE VII
WAGES, WORKWEEK AND OVERTIME
Section 1
Basic hourly wage rates for those employees of the
Company represented by the Union shall be as specified
in Appendix “A”, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, and shall continue as such until the expiration
of this Agreement.
If the August, 1967 United States Department of
Labor Cost of Living Index is one point or more above
the August, 1966 Index, the Company will grant the
employees a wage increase of two (2) cents an hour
effective October 1, 1967.
The rates of pay apply to both male and female em-
ployees.
Section 2
It is hereby agreed that work in excess of eight (8)
hours per day or forty (40) hours per week shall be
compensated by payment of overtime premiums as here-
inafter set forth. Whenever they are working a forty
(40) hour week, the workweek for employees other than
boiler firemen shall consist of five (5) eight (8) hour
shifts, from Monday to Friday, inclusive.
Section 3
The following overtime provisions shall apply to em-
ployees other than boiler firemen:
For all work in excess of eight (8) hours per day and
for all work between the hours of 12:24 a.m. Saturday
and 12:24 a.m. Sunday, an employee shall be paid one
and one-half (1!) times the established hourly rate.
Double the established hourly rate shall be paid for
hours worked between the hours of 12:24 a.m. Sunday
and 12:24 a.m. Monday.
31
Section 4
The following overtime provisions shall apply to boiler
firemen:
All work performed in excess of eight (8) hours per
day shall be paid for at the rate of one and one-half
(11%) times the established hourly rate.
One and one-half (115) times the established hourly
rate shall be paid for hours worked on the sixth (6th)
shift in any regularly established workweek.
Double the established hourly rate shall be paid for
hours worked beyond 12:24 A.M. of the day following
the start of the sixth (6th) shift and for hours worked
in the seventh (7th) shift in any regularly established
workweek.
Section 5
In computing the number of hours or shifts worked
by an employee for purposes of determining overtime
pay, holiday pay and vacation pay, the following shall
be considered hours or shifts worked:
a. Shifts or parts of shifts lost by employees when
unable to work on account of injuries sustained by
accident arising out of and in the course of their
employment, provided that prompt reports of such
injuries are made to the Company or its agents.
The decision of the doctor shall be final in deciding
when a man is unable to work.
b. Shifts or parts of shifts lost by employees on days
when they report to work as required, but are not
put to work or are sent home before the end of the
shift for any reason beyond the employee’s control.
e. Shifts lost because of holiday shutdowns.
d. Shifts lost because of absence on jury duty for
which the employee is paid under Section 10 of
this Article.
e. Shifts lost because of absence on union business
paid for by the Union in connection with contracts
32
with Dravo Corporation or its Subsidiaries pro-
vided the Union furnishes the Industrial Relations
Manager in advance of such absence with a letter
listing those who are going to be absent.
f. Hours lost by Officers of the Union and the mem-
bers of the Negotiating, Grievance and Pension
Committees while out of the Plant on Union busi-
ness connected with Dravo Corporation or its Sub-
sidiaries provided the Union furnishes the Indus-
trial Relations Manager in advance of such ab-
sences a letter listing those who are going to be
absent or such absence is in accordance with a
specific provision of this Agreement.
\
g. Shifts lost because of absence on military reserve
duty for periods of up to and including two (2)
weeks. \
Section 6
Whenever an employee is required to work more than
eight (8) hours in any day the employee shall continue
to be paid at the rate of time and one-half (11%) for
all hours worked in excess of eight (8) until he is given,
a rest period of at least one (1) full plant shift subse-
quent to his ceasing work.
Section 7
a. Holidays Not Worked
Eligible employees, including boiler firemen, shall be
allowed eight (8) hours’ pay at their regular straight
time base hourly rate for each of the following holidays
not worked regardless of the day on which they fall:
New Year’s Day Labor Day
Good Friday General Election .Day
Memorial Day Thanksgiving Day
Independence Day Christmas Day
December 24 (Except when Christmas falls on Thursday
when it will be December 26)
i"
99
00
Holidays occurring on Sunday will be celebrated on
Monday except December 24 and as noted in Paragraph
C.
If the holiday occurs within the time that the eligible
employee is absent on his regular scheduled vacation, he
will be paid eight (8) hours pay at his regular straight
time base hourly rate for such holiday in addition to his
vacation allowance.
Holidays occurring vn Saturday will be paid to em-
ployees who are absent because of jury duty or millitary
reserve duty where the Company is making up the dif-
ference between his regular base pay of 40 hours and
compensation received for such service. There will be
no compensation for holidays occurring or celebrated
Monday through. Friday.
To be eligible for holiday pay each employee shall work
the, regularly plant scheduled day before and the regu-
larly plant scheduled day after the holiday or day cele-
brated as such. In addition to working the full shift,
only under the following conditions will the employee
be considered as having worked if he (1) has reported
for work on the scheduled work day and is sent home
because no work is available and has been granted re-
porting pay, or (2) leaves work early with approval of
his supervisor, or (3) is absent up to twelve (12) months
immediately following date of accident because of an
injury received in the plant, or (4; is late for work, or
(5) is off on vacation, or (6) is absent due to illness
duly certified by the attending physician; provided, how-
ever, that such absence may occur, for the purpose of
this immediate paragraph, only once during the period
of the illness; said period of illness shall be deemed to
have ended upon the employee’s return to work.
b. Holidays Worked
Three (3) times the established base hourly rate shall
be paid for all hours actually worked from 12:24 a.m.
to 12:24 a.m. on the above holidays. Should the em-
ployee work less than eight (8) hours on the holiday
RE REN
34
and would have been otherwise eligible for holiday pay
as provided above, he will receive, in addition to three
(3) times his established base hourly rate for hours
actually worked, pay at his regular straight time base
hourly rate for eight (8) hours minus the number of
hours he did work on such holiday.
e. Boiler Firemen
Boiler Firemen, who work on a shift basis, shall be
paid for a “holiday worked” when the holiday occurs on
Sunday and he is scheduled to work that day but not
on Monday. If he is scheduled to work both days, he will
be paid as a “holiday worked” for one day only—Mon-
day. . .
Section 8
When more than one (1) type of premium compensa-
tion is applicable to the same hours of work under Sec-
tions 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and or 11 of this Article, only one (1)
—the highest—premium shall be paid.
Section 9
A premium allowance of seven percent (7%), but in
no case more than twenty cents (20¢) per hour, shall be
paid to employees on the second and third shifts. This
premium is applied to the employee’s total earnings, in-
cluding overtime, allowance and incentive earnings in
the departments where such incentive plans are in effect.
This also applies to first shift men transferred to the
second or third shift and to second or third shift men
temporarily transferred to the first shift for not more
than one (1) week.
Section 10
An employee who presents notice of call for jury serv-
ice will be excused from work on the days he serves and
35
for each day he serves on the jury on which he otherwise
would have worked he shall receive the difference be-
tween eight (8) times his straight time base hourly rate
and the payment he receives for such jury service. The
employee shall present proof of service and of the amount
of pay received therefor in order to receive above allow-
ance.
Section 11
When it is necessary to call a man out on his normal
shift on a premium day (Saturday, Sunday, or Holiday)
he shall be compensated as follows: if he works less than
four (4) hours on his norma] shift and is required to
work all or the major portion (four (4) hours or more)
of the next subsequent shift or shifts he will receive
credit for a change in shift, which would result in his
being paid at the premium day rate plus one-half (14)
his base hourly rate for all hours worked; if he works
four (4) hours or more on his normal shift and is re-
quired to work part or aii of the next. subsequent shift
or shifts, credit for change of shift shall not apply and
he will receive only the premium pay for that day.
Section 12
Nothing in this Article is to be construed as a guar-
antee of minimum hours per day, per week or per month.
Section 13
When an employee is off work due to a death in his
immediate family and actually attends the funeral, the
Company will pay the employee at his base hourly rate
eight hours per day for up to a total of three consecu-
tive days, however, if the death occurs on Thursday and
the funeral is on Monday the employee will be paid for
Friday and Monday, beginning with the day after death
| gained
36
to and including the day of the funeral with no payment
to be made for any of the three days which is a Satur-
day, Sunday, Paid Holiday, part of his vacation, or oc-
curs while he is not working. For purposes of this Sec-
tion “immediate family” is spouse, children, parent, sis-
ter, brother or parent-in-law.
* * * *
ARTICLE X
SENIORITY
Section 1
“Seniority” is the right of preference in layoffs or
rehiring, measured by length of service in a job classi-
fication at the Heavy Metals Plant, as hereinafter more
particularly described.
A reduction of the working force for a period of less
than one calendar week or for reasons beyond the
control of the Company shall not be considered a lay-
off. Such reductions of the working force shall be gov-
erned as nearly as practical by the application of senior-
ity to the department and/or shift that is being re-
duced. These same principles of reduction shall apply to
a gang except that such reduction shall not be for a
period of more than one (1) calendar day. Efforts will
be made to maintain maximum operations and to utilize
those having greatest seniority during such period. The
Company shall give preference to employees who have
given long and faithful service in the employ of the Com-
pany for the work they are able to do.
A rehiring is the re-employment of persons who have
been previously laid off.
Section 2
For purposes of this Article, the job classification shall
be the payroll classification of the Company as set forth
37
in Appendix “A”, attached to and made a part of this
Agreement. Where there are two (2) or more rates of
_ pay for a payroll classification, the total of said ratings
shall comprise one (1) job classification. I
Example: Laborer shall be one job classification.
- ASS Ug RAR Ng RR RES
ws; Sai 7
Handyman (in each particular craft), 1st.
class, 2nd. class, shall be one job classi-
fication.
Painter, 1st. class, 2nd. class, 3rd. class,
shall be one job classification.
In the interpretation and application of this Article
the parties will be governed by the Award and Opinion
of Lawrence R. Guild, Impartial Arbitrator, dated De-
cember 4, 1944.
First class rates will be the determining factor in
comparison of jobs for determination of higher or lower
job classifications for purposes of this Article.
Section 3
A new employee shall not have or accumulate seniority
unti) he has worked each of thirty (30) accumulated
days, which, however, must be accumulated within four
(4) months of date of hire, in the job classification in
which he was hired and during this thirty (30) working
day period the Company shall have the right to terminate
his employment for any reason whatever. The seniority
of employees retained at the end of said probationary
ane: shall date from the beginning of the probationary
period.
If an employee is transferred to or promoted to an
equal or higher job classification prior to obtaining senior- f
ity in his hiring classification, the working days accumu-
lated toward seniority in the new classification shall also
be counted toward seniority in the classification in which
he was hired.
Ar employee transferred or promoted to a new job
classification shall not have or accumulate seniority in the
new job classification until he has worked each of thirty
Ope had nite pn atin: napintas fill.
or tt SL AEE ALIN
38
(30) accumulated days at the end of which he shall have
and accumulate seniority from the beginning of the |
thirty (30) accumulated day period. The thirty (30) :
day probationary period shall not apply to reclassifications
resulting from the grievance procedure or arbitration
awards.
Three of more consecutive days of work (four (4)
hours or more will constitute a day of work for the
purpose of this Section only) in a particular job classi-
fication shall count toward the thirty (30) accumulated
days; provided, however, such thirty (30) days must
be accumulated during the period of July 1 to June 30.
When eniployees are transferred or promoted for three
or more consecutive days (four (4) hours or more will
constitute a day of work for purposes of this Section
only) to fill a vacancy caused by absence of the regular
employee on account of vacation or sickness and the pro-
moted or transferred employees do not have seniority in
the classification, such time shall count as part of the
accumulated thirty (30) days; however, when the re- .
placed employee returns to work the temporary employees
shall be returned to their former jobs in accordance with
their seniority in those jobs without liability on the part
_of the Company under Article VI of this Agreement.
4 When a layoff occurs in the promoted or transferred
4 employee’s most recent former classification during his
A probationary period in another classification, he shall
be laid off in accordance with his seniority in his most
recent former classification despite the fact he is a pro-
bationary employee in another classification and is so
rated on the payroll. If a layoff occurs in the probation-
' ary classification during his probationary period, he shall
be the first laid off in that classification but shall
have the right to return to his most recent former classi-
fication in accordance with his seniority in that classifi-
cation.
Employees shall be retained to the extent possible in
their current departments ard work assignments in con-
formity with the provisions of this Article.
Employees shall be retained, hired or rehired in ac-
cordance with the, seniority of employees in their re-
spective job classifications at the Heavy Metals Plant,
om —
late ? CCUG LA OBA FI RIOT IIE OT At EOE, PINS TORE:
“
%
”
y
€
4
:
4
: : a _
ne POL ALOIS LALIT ALDI AMAIA nes
39
subject to the limitations set forth in this Article. Where
two (2) or more employees in the same job classification
entered that classification on the same date, their relative
seniority shall be determined by their total length of
service at the Heavy Metals Plant. If their total length
of service at the Heavy Metals Plant is the same, then
relative seniority shall be determined alphabetically with
“A” having the greatest seniority; then “B”; etc.
In order to better stabilize employment at the Heavy
Metals Plant, every effort will be made to provide full
employment for regular employees rather than make fre-
quent layoffs and rehires. Whenever work occurs that
might be done by employees who are laid off being called
back to work for a week or less, but the work can be .
performed by employees in other classifications currently
working in the Heavy Metals Plant, the work may be
performed by the employees already working in the de-
partment who have seniority in the classification in which
the work is to be performed; however, if none having
such seniority are currently working in the department
any other employee may be assigned to the work rather
than by calling back additional employees. It is under-
stood temporary assignments for less than a day shal] not
be restricted. However, no employee shall we kept out
of the Heavy Metals Plant under this paragraph for more
than five (5) work days at any one time, nor shall this
clause be used to keep employees out of the Heavy Metals
Plant indefinitely.
SE SRR eo |
Section 4
It is the intent of the Company to “promote from with-
in” wherever possible. To this end, the following pro-
cedure is established to provide opportunity for advance-
ment of employees:
Each employee will be given the opportunity to submit
a questionnaire provided by the Company, or other written
form, in which he will set forth the higher skilled or
graded job classification to which he desires to be pro-
moted and the skills he possesses. Such questionnaire shali
be veplaced at least annually by the employee to reflect
current desires and abilities.
Abeer prises SOLEIL LOLOL LIME SY LLY IOAESY LLLEAL ELIE EME LEVEL OLE LLL SGLISEAE LENG. EE. oe |
> 40
The Company and the Union shall each appoint three
(3) persons to a Committee who will meet periodically,
but no less than three times a year to evaluate the ques-
tionnaires and endeavor to determine relative order in
which applicants will be given the opportunity to be
promoted to higher skilled or graded classifications. Should
the Committe be unable to agree with respect to a given
employee’s qualification or position on the list of appli-
cants the Company shall make the decision.
Employees on the Committee shall be paid for the time
spent attending evaluation meetings scheduled by the
Manager of Industrial Relations but in no case more than
sixteen (16) hours to any individual or a totai payment
of forty-eight hours to the Union Committee at any one
evaluation meeting which may or may not extend over
two days. Employees attending meetings other than eval-
uation meetings will be governed by Article XI, Section 5.
When no eligible employee is available to fill an exist-
ing vacancy, the Company shall secure qualified personnel
from any other source.
All disputes arising under the terms of this Section are
subject to the grievance procedure,.including arbitration.
However, no liability shall exist on the part of the Com-
pany for action taken under this Section except from no
more than forty-five (45) days prior to final decision of
any grievance filed with respect to such action which re-
verses the action taken by the Company.
Section 5
An employee who has been transferred or promoted
from one job to another in the Heavy Metals Plant with-
in the bargaining unit shall retain and accumulate
seniority in his previous job classifications. An employee
who has been transferred or promoted to a job in the
Engineering Works Division outside the bargaining unit
or an e’nployee permanently transferred to locations
other than Neville Island shal] retain and accumulate
seniority in his previous job classifications for a maximum
of five (5) years from date of transfer and thereafter
shell retain accumulated seniority orly. Effective Octo-
~ 41
ber 1, 1966, those currently working outside the bargain-
ing unit who were transferred five or more years prior to
October 1, 1966 shall retain their accumulated seniority
to October 1, 1966 only and those transferred within five
years prior to October 1, 1966 shall continue to accumu-
late seniority for a maximum of five years from date
of transfer and then shall retain.
Seniority in any new job classification to which an
employee is permanently transferred or promoted shall
date only from the date of his entry into the new classi-
fication.
Example: An employee was hired on January 1, 1938
in the Labor Department as a Laborer.
On January 1, 1939, he was transferred
to the Sheet Metal Shop as a Laborer.
On July 1, 1939, he was transferred to the
Pipe Shop as a Laborer.
On January 1, 1940, he was promoted to the
new job classification of Drill Press Opera-
tor (Machine Shop).
On January 1, 1942, he was transferred to
the new job classification of Machine caper
ator (Machine Shop).
On January 1, 1943 he was transferred
to the new jub classification of Machine Op-
perator (Structural Shop).
On January 1, 1944, he was promoted to
the new job classification of Inside Machin-
ist (Machine Shop).
On January 1,-1945, he was transferred to
the new job classification of Inside Machin-
ist (Repair Shop) where he remained until
January 1, 1947.
As of January 1, 1947, his total seniority
in each job classification was as follows:
a ene net Wak ghar Pe EI Re ea BT Oe Ne ee a
wos &
| eee cman REE Bae a ROS RIN RIMMER EAE
a
*
:
-§
:
i
42
As of January 1, 1947
Total Seniority in
Job Classification Each Job Classification
Laborer 2.2.20... ...cce.cceceecceeeceeeeeeceeveceeeeeeeeeeceeeseneeceeese 9 years from 1/1/38
Drill Press Operator
Machine Shop) ................2......20-:ceeseeeeeeee ees 7 years from 1/1/40
Machine Operator
(Machine Shop) .o..........0000..cccccceeceeeeeeeeeeee 5 years from 1/1/42
’ Machine Operator ;
(Structural Shop) 2.000.000.0000... 4 years from 1/1/43
Inside Machinist
(Machine Shop) 2000....0000.0..0.cc00cceeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeee 3 years from 1/1/44
Inside Machinist
(Repair Shop) ........ aideapuietuchadtbcsionsenesteene 2 years from 1/1/45
Those employees having seniority in the Heavy Metals
Plant, Engineering Works Division on the effective date
of this agreement and working in the Light Metals Plant,
Fabricated Products Division, shall continue to retain and
accumulate seniority in the Heavy Metals Plant, Engin-
eering. Works Division.
It is mutually agreed that any employee of the Engineer-
ing Works Division, Heavy Metals Plant, who refuses a
recall or transfer or assignment to a higher job classi-
fication in which he has seniority rights and chooses to
remain in a lower job classification shall sign a seniority
waiver thereby waiving his immediate bumping rights
into such higher job classification and relieving the Com-
pany of any liability for the difference in rates of pay
for the period he does not work at the higher job classi-
fication as a result of the waiver and his seniority in the
waived classification shall be retained but not accumulated
until sueh time as he actually returns to work in the
waived classification after filing revocation of the waiver
as provided in the next paragraph. However, where the
rate of pay received by an employee in a higher job
classification is less than the rate of pay received by the
employee in a lower job classification, the employee will
not be required to sign a waiver in the higher job classi-
fication if he chooses to remain in the lower job classifica-
tion. When an employee is currently working in the
PREACH PANON MER ITN EPPA RARE ORE EF CON He AER OOH HRIIA CE HAMS I Se RAR PD
ENG TRS LRA ER
43
Heavy Metals Plant and chooses to invoke his seniority —
in a lower job classification because he is unable to per- _
form his duties in higher job classification, he may sign
a waiver providing he is not displacing another employee
currently working in the lower classification. Employees
temporarily assigned to other classifications shall not be
required to sign a waiver covering such temporary assign-
ment. Employees who have rescinded their waivers prior
to August 1, 1954 but have not been placed at work in
one of their higher waived job classification as of Aug-
ust 1, 1954 will have their accumulated seniority in the
higher waived job classifications retained but not ac-
cumulated from August 1, 1954 until they do return to.
work in the waived ciassifications.
It is further agreed that the employee shall forfeit all
bumping rights in. the waived classification until. he has
notified both the Company and the Union in writing
of his desire to invoke his rights in the waived classi-
fication and he must wait until an opening ocurs in the
classification, after receipt of written notification, at
which time he shail be given the first opportunity to in-
voke his rights in the classification; if, however, the em-
ployee is being laid off in his current job classification,
he may invoke his retained waived seniority upon five
(5) days’ notice to the Company of intention to exercise
his seniority rights.
It is further agreed that the immediately preceding
two paragraphs apply to those employees who were on
the active payroll as of September 27, 1957 and those
hired subsequent to that date. Waivers signed prior to
January 21, 1949 by employees out of service on January
21, 1949 shall not be affected by this Agreement and their
waived seniority remains forfeited.
Nothing in the immediately preceding three paragraphs
is to be construed as being applicable to shift transfers
or transfers from one department to another.
—
Section 6
Where no work is available to any employee in his
present job classification, he may invoke his seniority
in any other job classification in which he has sufficient
2 PGP LEEDS EE SO ELM LOG SOLE EE TAT LEI TE PE NA AE ts ee ae
44
seniority to be employed at the expiration of the notice of
layoff required to be given the displaced employee under
: Article VI of this Agreement. Where an employee is
: about to be laid off because no work is available to him
in his present job classification, he shall be notified of
his “bumping” rights, (i.e., his right to be transferred to
former job classifications) and he may invoke his right
to be transferred to such former classification in the
Heavy Metals Plant or the Fabricated Products Division,
Light Metals Plant, in which case the transfer shall
be made at the expiration of the notice of layoff re-
quired to be given the displaced employee under Article
VI of this Agreement, provided, however, that an em-
t ployee, who, on being given his notice of layoff, immedi-
3 ately invokes his bumping rights shall not lose more than
: one (1) day’s work by reason of such notice to the dis-
ss placed employee.
: Whenever an employee is laid off and out of the Heavy
Metals Plant, he shall be given a notice for rehire in
any job classification in which he has sufficient seniority
= to be rehired when such werk first becomes available.
Whenever such an employee is notified to report in any
job classification other than his highest job classification
as defined in Section 2, and does not report for work or
present a reasonable excuse within five (5) days, he shall
not: be entitled to any further notices to report in the
job classification for which he was notified to report or
any other job classification of equal or lower pay, how-
ever, the employee shall have the right to invoke such
seniority if he has sufficient seniority to be employed and
gives the Company at least five (5) working days’ notice
in order that the displaced employee may be given the
notice required under Article VI. Prior to the return of
laid off employees during the five (5) day reporting
period, the Company may use any workers available to
do the type of work for which they are notified to report,
provided that notice to return to work has been mailed
to some eligible employees at least five (5) days prior to
the start of such work.
Et re ee rere hE Ce ene
Bee BERS PRL RRP ES BME RIFE APRA,
y
:
aon f= elaine,
Oe prema eee eee pee et
= “ re 4
45
Section -7
Employees shall lose all seniority rights in all job.classi-
fications in which they have such seniority rights if:
a. They voluntarily terminate or quit.
b. They are discharged for proper cause.
ec. They do not report for work during a period of
layoff out of the Heavy Metals Plant when notified
to report for work in their highest job classifica-
tion unless within five (5) days they present a rea-
sonable excuse. An employee’s highest job classi-
fication means the, or one of the, job classifications
in which the first class rate is the highest.
d. Employees hired as new employees on or after
October 1, 1961 who had thirty (30) days’ to three
(3) years’ seniority at time of layoff and have been
laid off.and out of the Heavy Metals Plant for a
period of six (6) months or more; however, if such
employee is re-employed within—one {1} year after =
expiration of such six (6) months, in the same
classification in which he was laid off or satisfactor-
ily completes the thirty (30) day probationary
period after reemployment if rehired in a new class-
ification, the employee will have added to his senior-
“ity all unbroken service during his last previous
employment prior to being laid off or they had
three (3) years’ to ten (10) years’ seniority at
time of layoff and have been laid off and out of
the Heavy Metals Plant for thirteen (13) months
or more, or they had ten (10) or more years’
seniority at time of layoff and have been laid off
and ou: of the Heavy Metals Plant for twenty-
four (24) months or more.
Employees hired prior to October 1, 1961 who
had sixty (60) days’ to ten (10) years’ seniority
at time of layoff and have been laid off and out
of the Heavy Metals Plant for thirteen (13)
months or more, or they had ten (10) or more
years’ seniority at time of layoff and have been
OOS nt yh LEROY NINES IRE RIND LEITH SLEEP TOPLESS ERSTE TINE ES NR ROT IOS accuracy
46
laid off and out of the Heavy Metals Plant for
twenty-four (24) months or more.
Length of retention of seniority rights shall be
determined solely in accordance with the employees’
seniority at time of layoff.
e. They are absent from work without explanation
for a period of five (5) work days. Where there
is good cause for such absence, the reason for
the absence may be explained after the end of
the five (5) days without loss of seniority.
Section 8
Absences because of illness or injury or periods wher
an employee is unable to perform his higher job classi-
fication work because of illness or injury but is em-
ployed in a lower,job classification shall not affect seniority
rights and inere,will be no liability for the difference in
rates off pay on the part of the Company while the
employee is working in the lower job classification; how-
ever, after a period of eighteen (18) months in cases of
employees having up to ten (10) years’ seniority as of
last day worked prior to such sickness or injury or after
a period of twenty-four (24) months+in cases of em-
ployees having ten (10) or more years’ seniority as of
last day worked prior to such sickness or injury, seniority
shall be retained but not accumulated. Should this em-
ployee working in. a lower job classification wish to re-
turn to his higher joh elzssification, he sha!] be permitted
to do so provided he shzll notify the Manager of Indus-
trial Relations at least five (5) work days prior io the
date he wishes to return to the higher job classification
in which he has seniority rights. In cases involving oc-
cupational injury or occupational disease suffered during
the course of employment wiih the Company, seniority
shall be accumulated but all other conditions of this para-
graph will apply.
An employee who is granted a leave of absence shall re-
tain and accumulate seniority for the period of the leave
of absence. However, an employee who does not return
to work within ten (10) days after the expiration of a
i eset o
&
47
leave of absence shall be considered to have quit his em-
ployment at the expiration of the leave of absence.
Any employee incapacitated by compensable injury or
compensable occupational disease while in the employ of
the Company to the extent of being unable to do his
regular work may be employed in any other work in
the Heavy Metals Plant that he can do without regard to
any seniority provisions of this Agreement except that
such employee will not cause the, layoff of anyone work-
ing in the Heavy Metals Plant and will not acquire
seniority in such classification. For each incapacitated
employee working out of classification an employee laid
off in that classification and out of the plant shall have
‘the period of his retention and accumulation of seniority
extended by the period the incapacitated employee works
in the classification. The incapacitated employee may only
be “bumped out” by an employee having greater seniority
in the assigned classification who is currently working
in» the Heavy Metals Plant and exercises his rights at
the time of layoff in a higher classification.
Section 9
In order to promote efficient administration of this
contract and to minimize any misunderstandings as to its
meaning, it is the policy of the Company and the Union —
to have it administered by the same people throughout its
term. To this end, top seniority is provided for the
following Union representatives.
Each of the following representatives of Local No.
61 shall have top seniority rights in the job classifjeation
he holds at the time of his election or appointment,
or any lower paid’ job classification ‘ih which he has
previously been employed when work is not available in
the job classification he held at the time of his election
or appointment, so long as he is able to do the work,
for his term of office. ,
Members of the Negotiating Committee, not in ex-
cess of seven (7); Grievance Committeemen, not in ex-
cess of five (5); Stewards, not in °xcess of one (1) for
each department on the day shift and if on the second
or third shift a department shall regularly employ thirty
“4
4
3
4
Rother
VAXSE ALA a AE
4
§
:
a
BJ
x
%
4
:
¥
3
2
3
Pd
a
Pe Eee OR A RL ee re adits ee 5
48
(30) or more employees, one (1) Steward shall be al-
lowed in such department on the shift or shifts employ-
ing thirty (30) or more employees; other Officers of the
Union, not in excess of eight (8).
The Union shall promptly notify the Industrial Rela-
tions Manager of the Company in writing of the em-
ployees who have or who have ceased to have such top
seniority rights.
Section 10
An employee inducted into the Armed Forces of the
United States shall be given the minimum reemployment
rights granted him under the Selective Service Act as
amended.
If, at the time he applies for re-employment under
the terms of the above-mentioned Act, his seniority is
not sufficient for him to be re-employed, he shall be
considered as being laid off as of the day following his
discharge from the service regardless of the date on
which he actually applies for re-employment.
Section 11
The Union will supply the Industrial Relations Man-
ager with a list of employees desiring a change in shift.
When openings occur on these shifts, the employees so
listed will be transferred in order of seniority among
those on the list, provided such transfer will not disrupt
the operation of either shift, but in no case, provided
such openings exist, shall an employee be refused a trans-
fer from one shift to another shift in the same job
classification for more than four (4) weeks because of
such disruption. Whenever such changes are made, no
right shall exist under Article XV, Section 1, of this
Agreement.
Section 12
The Company shall empioy not more than one (1)
apprentice for each five (5) machinists, other mechanics
in various trades, and specialists. Apprenticeship shall
be for four (4) years except machinists which will be
nts
49
three (3) years. Apprentices shall have no seniority
rights during the term of their apprenticeship and may
be discharged at any time that the Company determines
that the apprentice does not display proper aptitude for
the trade. Apprentices may be assigned to do productive
work but shall not be assigned to work for which there
is a governmental requirement that such work be certi-
fied to or signed for by a mechanic, except under super-
vision of a mechanic qualified to sign for such work.
Regular apprentices shall not be affected because of any
layoff or other employees; provided, that said ratio shall
not be exceeded. When an apprentice has completed his
course and received a certificate certifying that he has
learned his trade and is assigned to a particular job
classification within that trade, he shall have up to four
(4) years’ accumulated seniority as a Helper in that
classification dependent upon his length of service as an
apprentice.
Section 13
In each instance where a job classification in Appendix
“A” of this Agreement supersedes a job classification set
forth in Appendix “A” (Job Classifications and Wage
Rates) of the collective bargaining agreement dated Sep-
tember 7, 1945 and March 14, 1947, the seniority of the
employee in his old job classification has been added to
and made a part of his seniority in the new job classi- ,
fication.
All seniority accumulated in an obsolete classification,
such as but not limited to Reamer, Heater, Sticker,
Riveter, Countersinker, Bucker or Bolter, has been ap-
plied to the first currently used classification into which
an employee was reclassified after leaving the obsolete
classification. Future determination of the obsolescence
of any classification presently contained in Appendix
“A” of this Agreement, shall be by mutual agreement
between the Company and the Union.
Section 14
A seniority register known as Appendix “D” to the
collective bargaining agreement dated March 14, 1947,
CELE NE LEA IOE LAREN
ee aS
PELE PAE IRE AS tt tan PERE ARR AR. Eons
:
50
between the parties has been agreed upon by the Com-
pany and the Union and is deemed to be final and
correct as of January 1, 1949 and no appeal is permitted
therefrom except those cases then pending arbitration.
A revised seniority register, attached hereto and made
a pert hereof and marked Appendix “B”, showing. the
seniority standing of each employee in each job classifica-
tion shall be posted once each year in a place accessible
to all employees and will be revised as of August 1 of
each year. The first revision shall be as of August 1,
1949. An employee will have sixty (60) days from date
his name appears on such revised roster to appeal his
roster date or relative standing thereon; it being under-
stood that such appeal may be made only on the stand-
ing as then posted and that the employee will not be
permitted to appeal standings previously posted. In case
an employee is off on leave of absence, vacation, sickness,
disability or suspension at the time roster is posted, the
time limit provided for herein will apply from the date
the employee returns to duty. If no appeal is taken
within the sixty (60) day period as provided, future
appeals will not be entertained. A note will be placed on
each roster stating the time limit of appeal. The Union
shall be given copies of seniority roster when posted.
* * * * *
ARTICLE XIV
VACATIONS
Section 1
Effective December 31, 1966, vacations for eligible
employees, as defined in Section 2, will be calculated
as of December 31 each year. On the first December .
31 of employment he will be given four (4) hours’ vaca-
tion with pay at his base hourly rate at the time of
taking the vacation for each month in which he worked
ten (10) or more days between his hire date and De-
cember 31, up to a maximum of forty (40) hours. On
the second December 31 of continuous employment he
will be given one (1) week and two (2) days vacation
of fifty-six (56) hours with pay at his base hourly
a
peat es sRaets
‘ ; m wt ee ee eee mnt |
51
rate at the time he receives his vacation pay to be
taken at such time as the Company shall designate.
On the third December 31 of continuous employment
he will be given one (1) ‘week and three (3) days vaca-
tion of sixty-four (64) hours with pay at his base
hourly rate at the time he receives his vacation pay
to be taken at such time as the Company shall designate.
On the fourth December 31 of continuous employment
he will be given one (1) week and four (4) days vaca-
tion of seventy-two (72) hours with pay at his base hourly
rate at the time he receives his vacation pay to be taken
at such time as the Company shall designate. At the
fifth December 31 of continuous employment and through
the ninth December 31 of continuous employment, he will
be given a two (2) week vacation of eighty (80) hours
with pay at his base hourly rate at the time he receives
his vacation pay to be taken at such time as the Com-
pany shall designate: At the tenth December 31 of con-
tinuous employment and through the nineteenth December
31 of continuous employment, he will be given three (3)
weeks’ vacation of one hundred twenty (120) hours with
pay at his base hourly rate at the time he receives. his
vacation pay to be taken at such time as the Company
shall designate. At the twentieth December 31 of con-
tinuous employment and through the twenty-ninth De-
cember 31 of continuous employment, he will be given
four (4) weeks’ vacation of one hundred sixty (160)
hours with pay at his base hourly rate at the time he
receives his vacation pay to be taken at such time as the
Company shall designate. At the thirtieth and subse-
quent December 31sts of continuous employment he will
be given five (5) weeks’ vacation of two hundred (200)
hours with pay at his base hourly rate at the time he
receives his vacation pay to be taken at such time as the
Company shall designate. If an eligible employee is laid
off prior to taking his earned vacation, the Company —
will pay the employee such earned vacation at the time
of layoff, regardless of when the employee’s vacation
was scheduled and no further vacation right shall exist.
ofl
oi
4
4
:
;
Saw teteac
5 llDendl SNS che RR Ai taunt ab imams dled omnes
a a BIO LE TM et en 2 a Re CED tly toy ota! oa
52
Section 2
In order to qualify for the foregoing vacations, an em-
ployee who has been continuously employed for two (2)
or more December 31sts and has seniority on the cur-
rent December 3lst must have received earnings in at
least twenty-five (25) workweeks in the twelve (12)
months immediately preceding the current December 31st.
However, employees who are laid off during the year im-
mediately preceding December 31st and because of such
layoff do not qualify for a vacation under this Section
‘will be given a pro-rata vacation to which they might
otherwise be entitled on the relationship of the weeks they
did work to twenty-five (25) weeks but in no case more
vacation than they would have received under this Sec-
tion if they had worked twenty-five (25) weeks or more.
For purposes of eligibility for vacations, absence from
work due to occupational injury or occupational disease
up to twelve (12) months immediately following date of
beginning of such absence will be included as time
worked in the said immediately preceding twelve (12)
mnonths.
“Continuous employment” as used in this Article means
continuous seniority since any break in such seniority
‘caused by any of the reasons enumerated in Section 7
of Article X of the Agreement.
Section 3°
. Where an eligible employee has worked a six (6)
day week for not less than thirteen (13) nor more
than twenty-five (25) weeks during said twelve (12)
months, he shall be granted an additional four (4) hours
with pay at his base hourly rate at the time he re-
ceives his vacation pay for each week of vacation to
which he is otherwise entitled.
Where an eligible employee has worked a six (6)
day week for twenty-six (26) or more weeks during
said twelve (12) months, he shall be granted an addi-
tional eight (8) hours with pay at his base hourly rate
_ at the time he receives his vacation pay for each week
of vacation to which he is otherwise entitled.
SEES EL LIOR L ES LD NINE OEE RYE EE IOC IIE TEAS GEESE TA
Pa oP kT
pet
53
Eligible employees shall have the option of taking either
full regular workdays with pay or be paid in cash for
the additional vacation resulting from working the re
quired six (6) day weeks. At the time of scheduling
his regular vacation, the eligible employee will exercise
his option by either scheduling the extra workdays off
with pay or indicating he prefers cash in lieu of days
off. The cash will be paid at the time he receives his va-
cation pay. “Periods of less than a full day will be paid
for in cash rather than time off.
Section 4
Any employee who has qualified for a vacation under
Section 1 above may use all or part of his earned vaca-
tion to offset legitimate absences of three (3) days or
more to the extent of his earned vacation. Legitimate
absences shall mean an absence because of sickness of the
employee or members of his family which requires his
absenting himself from work or a death in the family.
Section 5
Nothing in this Article shall be construed as granting
an employee more than one (1) vacation in any calendar
year.
Section 6
Employees retiring prior to December 31 of the cur-
—— ae
SUMS CAIVERT YS
rent year will tz paid that portion of the vacation they
would have earned as of December 31 of the current
year had they not retired as the number of weeks in the
current year in which they performed work bears to
twenty-five (25). For example, if he performs work in
two weeks he would receive 2/25ths of a vacation.
Section 7
If an employee dies prior to December 31 of the cur-
rent year payment will be made as provided by law of
that portion of the vacation he would have earned as of
December 31 of the current year had he not died as the
number of weeks in the current year in which he per-
formed work bears to twenty-five (25). For example, if
i a NF eG TL OER tote, |
54
he performs work in two weeks he would receive 2/25ths
of a vacation.
ARTICLE XXIV
GROUP INSURANCE PLAN
Section 1 4
Each eligible active employee will be entitled to par-
ticipate in the Company’s Group Insurance Plan to the
extent provided in the Schedule of Benefits briefly set
forth in Appendix “C” to this Agreement and more fully
described in the Dravo Insurance Certificate which is in-
corporated herein by reference. This insurance program
shall be placed with a reliable insurance firm and the
cost of such insurance will be paid by the Company ex-
cept for Supplemental Life Insurance which will be paid
for by the employee. The employee will provide the Com-
pany with an authorization to deduct the cost of this
insurance from his pay. :
All employees are eligible to participate as of the first
of the month following sixty (60) days after employ-
ment.
Section 2
This Article shall not be construed as requiring the
continuation of any insurance benefit beyond the termi-
nation date of this Agreement.
This program is subject to amendments to conform
with or to.recognize benefits that are or may be provided
by any State or Federal Law. In no event shall the
benefits of this plan provide benefits duplicated under
State or Federal Law, except to the extent that the bene-
fits payable under this insurance program exceed the
benefits payable under such laws.
2 * * *
ARTICLE XXVI
PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT
The Company and the Union have reached mutual
agreement on the subject of pensions and retirement and
De EAI
CUR EIS II
55
the same is contained in a separate supplemental agree-
ment dated September 27, 1950 and supplemented in
October, 1965.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Dravo Corporation (En-
gineering Works Division) has caused this Agreement
to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its corpo-
rate seal to be affixed hereto; the Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, A.F.L.-
C.I.0., has caused this Agreement to be signed by its
duly authorized officers and its seal affixed hereto; and
Local 61 of the Industrial Union of Marine and Ship-
building Workers of America, A.F.L.-C.I.0., has caused
this Agreement to be signed by its duly authorized offi-
cers and its seal affixed hereto; all on the date first above
written.
DRAVO CORPORATION
Engineering Works Division
Heavy Metals Plant
By: WALTER L. DAVIDSON
General Manager
Attest: . WM. G. GREER
Industrial Relations Manager
G. W. ALEXANDER
Operations Manager
D. W. RAEGLER
Plant Manager
G. T. LEONARD
For Director of Industrial Relations
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND
SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
A.F.L.-C.1.0., Local No. 61
By: LEONARD A. THORNBURG
President
‘
- PS Bid” OTL
ae re koe
56
PHILIP J. HAUSHALTER
Chairman, Negotiating Committee
JOHN GOOD
ALBERT G. FUCHS
EDWARD J. MEYER
THOMAS R. PIPICH
WILLIAM R. FAULKNER
JOHN L. TAYLOR
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND
SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
A.F.L.-C.L0.
By: C. A. LEONE
Attest: THOMAS R. PIPICH
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND
SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA,
A.F.L.-C.1.0.
By: JOHN J. GROGAN
President
Attest: ANDREW A. PETTIS
Vice-President
4
4
2
a“
£
57
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sidney Salkin, one of the attorneys of record for
plaintiff, hereby certify that I served a copy of this
Interrogatories Propounded By Plaintiff To Be Answered
BY A Responsible Officer Of Dravo Corporation, En-
gineering Works Division on defendant Dravo Corpora-
tion, on the — day of February 1972, by depositing in
the United States mails true and correct copies of the
aforementioned in an envelope requiring no postage and
sent certified mail, return receipt requested, certified no.
673071 to Charles R. Volk, Esquire, 2900 Grant Build-
ing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, counsel of record
for defendant.
/s/ Sidney Salkin
Sidney Salkin
Attorney
One of the attorneys for plaintiff
eo
Phe sit Ba riche rRNA ga ANTE . eee ee
co ab Laneeicitint
Siw Dark
Sica gle 2 Sag
Fee,
Rn Gee hE
58
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, CHARLES R. VOLK, the attorney of record for
defendant, hereby certify that I served a true and correct
copy of the completed Interrogatories propounded by
plaintiff to be answered by a responsible officer of Dravo
Corporation, Engineering Works Division, on plaintiff
on the 21st day of April, 1972, by depositing ‘in the
United States mail a true and correct copy of the afore-
mentioned in an envelope sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested, certified number 538509, to Sidney
Salkin, Esquire, United States Department of Labor,
Office of the Solicitor, 1505 Jefferson Building, 1015
Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, one
of the attorneys of record for plaintiff.
/s/ Charles R. Volk
Charles R. Volk
Attorney for Defendant
59
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
— ei Action No. 71-781
— J aly 2, 1972, 2:25/PM, U.S. Attorney’s Office
Pittsburgh, Pa. ]
EARL R. FOSTER, PLAINTIFF
vs.
DRAVO CORPORATION, DEFENDANT
PROCEEDINGS
Non-Jury Trial in the above-entitled action, commenc-
ing at 10:00 A.M. on May 31, 1972, United States Dis-
trict Court, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, before Honorable
Wallace S. Gourley.
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
Sidney Salkin, Assistant U. S. Attorney
On behalf of the Defendant:
Robert H. Shoop, Jr., Esquire
Marilyn Brown
Court Reporter
[2] (The Court came to order.)
THE COURT: The Court at this time will proceed
with the trial at Civil Action 71-781.
MR. SALKIN: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning. Be seated.
Proceed, Mr. Salkin.
MR. SALKIN: Thank you, sir.
PELL ELE TEI BELA BOR NG ISELIN IG SLE NLEL TOD HOTLIST aa
oo aeeinetaiie
oa
aad
safe Sidhsvenia
RPE cS
60
If I may, at first I wish to read into the record cer-
tain of the defendant’s answers to the plaintiff’s interro-
gatories which have been filed of record in this case.
THE COURT: What is your case about?
MR. SALKIN: This case, sir, is a claim brought on
behalf of a veteran, Earl Foster, who seeks vacation
pay and damages from his employer, as one of the re-
employment rights guaranteed veterans by Congress,
within the purview of the Selective Service Act of 1967.
That Act is foune at 50 United States Code Appendix, -
Section 459(b) and (ce).
These rights which are sought by the veteran here were
wrongfully denied him by the defendant, his employer.
The issue to be considered by this Court, sir, may be
framed as follows:
Is a contract requirement which establishes as a pre-
requisite to vacation time with pay, that the employees
have received earnings a certain number of weeks, a
denial of his [3] rights secured by the Act?
Now, if I may—
THE COURT: You could also add a phrase to that,
when the rights were accumulated during military
service.
MR. SALKIN: I’m sorry, sir. I missed that. Would
Your Horor—
THE COURT: Shouldn’t you also add to your ques-
tion, when the rights were accumulated during military
service?
MR. SALKIN: Automatically accrued him during his
‘absence in the military service.
THE COURT: He did not work during this period.
MR. SALKIN: He did not work while he was absent
in the military service. That is correct.
THE COURT: The question should be posed, when
the rights were accumulated during military service, and
he would have worked if he had not been in the mili-
tary service.
MR. SALKIN: That is correct, sir, right.
- THE COURT: Because there is a difference.
61
MR. SALKIN: Now, if I may proceed with my earlier
request to read into the record certain Answers of the
defendant.
THE COURT: ‘Anything that has been admitted by
the defendant or anything that can be read to me, you
may read it into the record, and no testimony need be
offered.
[4] MR. SALKIN: ~ Very good, sir.
I cite first Interrogatory No. 10, which re “State
the number of work jveeks worked by the plaintiff, and
for which he received earnings from the defendant in the
course of his employment by the defendant for each
calendar year from the period August 5th, 1965 through
December 31st, 1968.” The answer is, 1965, 22 weeks;
1966, 47 weeks; 1967, 9 weeks; 1968, 13 weeks.
THE COURT: Why are we interested or concerned
with any years except the years 1967 and 1968? The
defendant in his stipulation agreed that if this gentleman
had not been in the military service, he would have
worked during the total ef the period of time that he
was in the service.
So, what relevancy do the years 1965 and 1966 have
to the determination of these issues?
MR. SALKIN: Actually, the years 1965 and 1966
have no relevance, from the plaintiff’s standpoint, sir.
THE COURT: Why are you reading it into the
record?
MR. SALKIN: Merely because it is part of the an-
swer, part of which does have relevance; and rather than
just read the Court a partial answer, I read the entire
answer, sir.
THE COURT: Well, it might be bétter to just read
in what relates to the deter mination of these issues. No
Court is interested in something that has no relevancy.
[5] MR. SALKIN: Very good, sir.
THE COURT: You can always read part of an an-
swer. You do not reed to read the whole.
MR. SALKIN: All right. The Interrogatory No. 14
reads, “In the period from on or about March 8rd, 1967
to on or about October 7, 1968, had the plaintiff not
been absent in the military service, would he have
SOR le GBS dik Siler oh
| Beat:
ELE WAR ABLE he 2 sua
62
worked and received earnings therefor in the employ-
ment of the defendant for at least 25 weeks in each of
he calendar years 1967 and 1968?” The answer is yes.
nterrogatory No. 15—
~“THE COURT: That was also agreed to in the stipula-
tion; Why are you reading interrogatories when you
have a stipulation? I mean, what is your trial tactic in
this? Wouldn’t it be simple—
MR. SALKIN: I think that will becorfie apparent
when the defendant argues his case.
Fifteen reads, “If your answer to the preceding inter-
rogatory is in the affirmative, would the plaintiff have
accrued vacation benefits for each of the calendar years
1967 and 1968? If so, compute the specific amount of
vacation benefits and the nature thereof for each of the
calendar years 1967 and 1968.”
THE COURT: I notice in the stipulation, you have a
place that you left open, each of you. I asked that you
[6] agree to everything that is humanly possible. I can-
not understand why you could not agree when it comes
to a point as to where it is set forth that if the plaintiff
is entitled to benefits, the benefits shall be in the amount
of blank. Why couldn’t you agree on it?
MR. SALKIN: We did this morning, sir.
MR. SHOOP: Your Honor, we have. That isn’t the—
This is the correct stipulation. Mr. Salkin and i just met
yesterday. ‘-
THE COURT: Sir, I can
me. That is all you gave me.
MR. SHOOP: I know, Your Honor. I wonder why
Mr. Salkin hasn’t admitted the stipulation into evidence.
THE COURT: Sir, your simple way to try it is to
read into the record your stipulation.
- MR. SALKIN: I hadn’t come to that yet, sir, but I
am about to.
THE COURT: Well, you do not want to repeat these,
now, do you?
MR. SALKIN: No, sir. But, you see—
THE COURT: Why read interrogatories and answers
if you have it in your stipulation? That is what I can-
not understand.
ly read what you gave
scenenenetlinesekneh Walch] an adncinatrmatenas dagen iambmee<
AwScoee “ “ TE AN i aaa eis |
63
MR. SALKIN: Because they are not in quite the same ;
form in the stipulation, sir. 3
[7] THE COURT: Well, I guess we all try cases
differently.
MR. SALKIN: The answer to Interrogatory No. 15
was, 1967, 64 hours; 1968, 72 hours.
Now, at this point, sir, I offer into evidence a final
stipulation of facts which has been agreed to—
THE COURT: Admitted. Admitted. I would rather
accept that one part; just that one.
MR. SHOOP: Your Honor, that is not the stipulation
that you have in your possession.
THE COURT: Why do you men confuse a Judge
then—and I take these things home and study them at
night—and give me things that are improper? Why do
you do that?
MR. SHOOP: I didn’t—
THE COURT: Why didn’t you recall what you did?
MR. SHOOP: I didn’t give it to you, Your Honor.
The first opportunity Mr. Salkin and I had to meet was
yesterday afternoon, and we agreed to a stipulation that
is now being presented into evidence.
THE COURT: Well, then, take your stipulation. I do
not want to look at it. It is improper. Why do you do
these things to me? I spend hours in preparing cases,
and then, when we get in trial, the attorney on one side
or the other says to me, “Well, that’s no good.”
[8] MR. SALKIN: If Your Honor please, I had sev-
eral conversations over the telephone with counsel in
advance—
THE CCURT: Couldn’t you have called my Adminis-
trative Assistant and told him, “Forget what I sent you.
It is not the right one.”
MR. SALKIN: We did not complete the final stipula-
tion until late yesterday afternoon, sir; and it was not
presented in final form until this morning.
THE COURT: Well, read it into the record.
MR. SALKIN: Very good, sir.
THE COURT: I do not know what is in it.
MR. SALKIN: All right. “Stipulation of Fact, No. 1.
Plaintiff was initially employed by the defendant on or
q
Ts
s
;
x
5
qa
.
K
4
ny
r
§
64
about August 5th, 1965, and he remained continuously™
employed until he was granted a military leave of ab-
sence by the defendant and left his employment on or
about March 6, 1967, for induction into the Armed
Forces of the United States.”
THE COURT: Just a minute. It is all right to tear
this up, so we do not get confused? Get it out of exist-
ence. I do not want it. All right with you?
MR. SALKIN: It‘s all right with me, sir.
THE COURT: Well, it is of no value to anyone.
MR. SALKIN: Not at this point. “2. At—
[9] THE COURT: You fellows, you must think the
only thing I have to try is what you have. Go ahead.
MR. SALKIN: “2. At the time plaintiff left his em-
ployment as aforesaid, he was employed as a Scaler—
Hand Brush at an hourly rate of $2.62.
“3. The aforementioned employment was in an other-
than-temporary position.
“4, Plaintiff served in the Armed Forces until Octo-
ber 1st, 1968, and thereafter made timely application to
defendant for reinstatement in his employment and was
restored in his pre-service position by defendant on or
about October 7, 1968, at an hourly rate of $2.92.
“5. At all times material hereto, plaintiff’s plant sen-
iority was and is August 5th, 1965.
“6. By the terms of a collective bargaining agreement
then in force between plaintiff’s collective bargaining rep-
resentative, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuild-
ing Workers of America, Local Union No. 61, AFL-CIO,
and defendant, vacation benefits and eligibility therefor
are provided in Article 14, Sections 1 and 2. A copy of
said provisions of the said collective bargaining agree-
ment are attached hereto and marked Exhibit 1. Said
collective bargaining agreement and the aforementioned
provisions thereof were in effect according to their respec-
tive terms at all times relevant to the present case.
[10] “%. In addition, Article 10, Section 8 of the afore-
said agreement provides that, ‘An employee who is
granted a leave of absence shall retain and accumulate
seniority for the period of the leave of absence.’
“8, Article 14 defines seniority as ‘the right of prefer-
ence in layoffs or rehiring, measured by length of service
i
‘
65
in a job classification at the Heavy Metals Plant,’ and
Section 2, lines 5 to 8 of said agreement provides, ‘Con-
tinuous employment as used in this Article means con-
tinuous seniority since any break in such seniority caused
by any of the reasons enumerated in Section 7 of Arti-
cle 10 of the agreement.’
“Article 14, Section 1 of the agreement provides that
on the first December 31st of his employment, an em-
ployee receives 4 hours paid vacation for each month in
which he worked 10 days or more. The second Decem-
ber 31st of continuous employment, he receives 1 week
and 2 days of paid vacation. Progressively longer paid
’ vacations are awarded up to the 30th year, always based
on years of continuous employment after December 31st.
LAA Mi Ab 2 2E AO ARI
“Article 14, Section 2 provides that, beginning with -
the second December 31st of employment and thereafter,
in order to qualify for vacation, an employee must have
‘received earnings’ in 25 work weeks in the 12 months
immediately preceding the current December 31st.
[11] “Article 14, Section 2, lines 28 through 29 fur-
ther provides, ‘Employees who are laid off during the
year immediately preceding December 31st, and because
of such layoff do not qualify for a vacation under this
section, will be given the pro rata vacation to which they
might otherwise be entitled, on the relationship of the
weeks they did work to 25 weeks.
“9. Plaintiff received all vacation benefits due him for
tne year 1966 before entering military service on or
about March 6, 1967. In the period from on or about
March 38rd, 1967 to on or about October, 1968, the plain-
tiff would not have been laid off.
“10. During the period between on or about March 6th,
1967 and October 7th, 1968, while the plaintiff was
absent in the military service, approximately 12 employees
who were junior to the plaintiff in terms of plant senior-
ity date, and who were not called for induction into the
military service, received earnings in at least 25 work
weeks in each of the calendar years 1967 and 1968, and
were thereby eligible for vacation benefits. Said junior
employees, the number of work weeks worked, and the
i hoo Cre ee ere eae eer
eee |
z MELD EAE SIO MA At GOLGI ODA EARLE LENOIR ELE yt RE awe semis
. ]
;
of .
66
vacation credits received are nereto attachd as Stipulation |
Exhibit No. 2.
“11, Plaintiff’s vacation benefits would have amounted
to 64 hours for the calendar year 1967, and 72 hours for
the calendar year 1968, based on his seniority and length
of continuous service with the defendant.
[12] “12. Article 5 of the aforesaid agreement recog-
nizes the company’s right to discharge or discipline em-
p’ovees for ‘proper cause’.’
THE COURT: What does that have to do with the®
case?
MR. SALKIN: As far as I’m concerned, nothing, sir.
In the event the Court—
THE COURT: Well, then, why are you stipulating
tt at?
MR. SHOOP: Your Honor, I just wanted to stipulate
that, if Mr. Salkin is prepared to make the argument-
that a person need only work 26 days in the course of a
whole year to qualify for vacation. I would like to
point out to the Court that if a man is continuously ;
absent, we would discharge that man for failure to be
a regular employee.
So therefore, we do have proper cause im that this
analysis or analogy that Mr. Salkin may make in his
argume~t—and I don’t know if he is going to make it—
that a man would only work 26 days and could get a full
vacation isn’t really true, because it won’t happen, would
4e my point on that.
-THE COURT: What do you mean, it would not
happen?
MR. SHOOP: Because we would discharge an [13]
individual for proper cause, that is, failure to be a regu-
lar employee, if he just came to work one day for each
of 26 weeks, or 25 weeks, excuse me.
MR. SALKIN: Of course, that’s purely speculative
from the plaintiff’s point. of view.
MR. SHOOP: Of course, it’s. speculative from your
point of view; and I just wanted to point out that, of
' course, there are other remedies, if Mr. Salkin wants to
make this argument. |
“>
‘
1-4 4
ILE SV IOE ELIS MY RRS Pes IOS set ice
nes POOR ENO DIORA OM MR ESE ve ae O00 wtaranoe oes PN ee en MA LOA AE ne ela
67
THE COURT: I do not see where it has anything to
do with the case, but if you want it in the record, all
right. At least, I will not consider it, unless you change
my thinking.
MR. SALKIN: Very good, sir.
“In the event the Court finds for the plaintiff in this
case, it is stipulated ane agreed that the damages in-
curred and payable to plaintiff by defendant by virtue of
defendant’s denial of plaintiff’s vacation pay and other
benefits shall be $377.92.”
Now, if I may, sir, I will offer the aforementioned
stipulation of facts with its exhibits attached for identifi-
cation, and ask that it be admitted into evidence.
THE COURT: Admitted. Mark it, Mr. Clerk.
But do not offer any oral testimony about anything that
has been stipulated.
[14] MR. SALKIN: I have no intention of doing
so, sir. ‘
THE COURT: Did you attach the collective bar-
gaining agreement to your stipulation?
MR. SALKIN: The relevant portions which I quoted,
sir, are attached.
THE COURT: Read me the provision in the collective
' bargaining agreement, if you will, please, that holds that
when a man is in the military service—I realize he keeps
getting his seniority. Read me the provision of the col-
lective bargaining agreement that says that while he is
in the military service, it is the same as if he were
working, as far as vacation allowance is concerned.
MR. SALKIN: There are no provisions in the collec-
tive bargaining agreement, sir, providing for any benefits
with relation to persons in the military service, other
than a simple statement that the—if I may find it here
now.
THE COURT: Well, there is no man who has any
more sympathy to any man who has the guts and the
physical and mental capabilities of serving his country,
when they hearken to the call of service, than I do.
It is just unfortunate that so.many of the young men
come home, especially from this dastardly war we have s
in Vietnam, and they have no work or no place to go.
Le seas ee tere i ea ea ea
2 ae pe ee eae |
EURAIL O » ' ——
~~
68
[15] But where does the Court get any authority to read
into a coiliective bargaining agreement something that
does not exist?
That is my problem in these cases; and this is not the
first one of this nature that I have had, as you are
well aware.
MR. SALKIN: Very much s0, sir.
There are several distinctions. Number one, the Court
gets the authority from the holdings of the Supreme
Court in several cases.
THE COURT: The Supreme Court cannot read into
a collective bargaining agreement something that does not
exist.
MR. SALKIN: But the Supreme Court has held that
collective bargaining agreements, where they collide with
the provisions and rights guararteed to the veteran by
the terms of the Selective Service Act, must give way to
the requirements of the Act. j
THE COURT: * Well, that I cannot buy.
MR. SALKIN: | But that is the language of the Court,
sir.
THE COURT: Well, I have ruled to the contrary.
MR. SALKIN: Pardon me? ,
THE COURT: I have ruled to the contrary, [16] as
you know. .
MR. SALKIN: I know. I know, sir.
Now, going back to your first question about the right—
THE COURT: You had better present your case on
facts first. When you tell me you are through with the
evidence, then I will hear the other side.
Is there any other evidence you have to offer?
MR. SALKIN: Simply the answer to your question as
to the rights of the veteran, in bas collective bargaining
agreement itself. —
Section 10 provides that an ‘ensioges inducted into
the Armed Forces of the United States shall be given
the minimum r<-employment rights guaranteed him un-
der the Selective Service Act, as amended; and that is
the only reference in the collective bargaining agreement
at any point.
: <—% —
—
69
THE COURT: Well, they gave this young man his job
back, with the increase in salary rights, as soon as he
was discharged and he was able to arrange his affairs to
start to work, didn’t they?
MR. SALKIN: That is not in issue here, sir.
THE COURT: Isn’t that a fact?
MR. SALKIN: That is a fact, I presume. That is
not in issue.
THE COURT: It either is or it isn’t.
[17] What your adversary said is that a person in the
military service will not lose any seniority righis. That
I agree, and that should be. But didn’t he get everything
back that he had. before he left, as far as the job that
he had and the wages that he received for that job?
MR. SALKIN: He got his wages and he got his job
back, sir, but not all of his seniority rights.
THE COURT: Pardon me?
MR. SALKIN: But not all of his seniority rights.
From the plaintiff’s point of view, his vacation benefits—
THE COURT: Yes, but he had—
MR. SALKIN: —were part of his seniority rights.
THE COURT: Sir, you and I had a little trouble the
last time you were here, with you interrupting ‘me.
Please don’t interrupt me, and I won’t interrupt you,
either.
As I understand it, he got his job back, with the same
seniority stature as if he had worked during the whole
time he was in military service, when he came back; is
that right? s
MR. SALKIN: Except that he—
THE COURT: He got the job back, based on his sen-
iority. He did not lose anything as far as his job [18]
status.
MR. SALKIN: He got his pre-service job back.
THE COURT: That is all I asked you. And he got
the increase in wages that took place during the time that
he was in military service.
MR. SALKIN: He got his increase in wages. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: That is all I asked you again. The
only thing he did not get was, the company would not
pay him the accumulation of vacation time that he would
&
2
q
oy
4
4
Fi
ta Bina te
Kena.
70
have accumulated had he been working, rather than if he
had been in the military service.
MR. SALKIN: That is correct.
THE COURT: You claim that while under this con-
tract—Well, you say under the contract there is no pro-
vision in it about him getting the accumulation as far as
vacation for the time that he was in military service.
There is nothing in the contract about that?
MR. SALKIN: There is on in the contract
about that, in those terms.
THE COURT: That is all I ask
MR. SALKIN: In those terms. /
THE COURT: That is all I asked,
*-MR. SALKIN: And if I may make an amendment—
THE COURT: That is all I asked.
[19] MR. SALKIN: If—May I make an amendment
to my answer?
THE COURT: Is there anything in the contract that
says that while any employee of the defendant is in the,
military service of his country, he earns, he earns his
vacation rights the same as if he were actually working
while he was in military service? Is there anything in the
contract that says that, in the collective bargaining agree-
ment?
MR. SALKIN: The contract does say that, by merely
being on the payroll, as opposed to working, an em-
ployee does earn vacation benefits.
THE COURT: Read that to me.
MR. SALKIN: Very good, sir.
THE COURT: That while he is on the ee
MR. SALKIN: The payroll.
THE COURT: —he earns his vacation benefits, even
though he does not work.
MR. SALKIN: That is correct.
THE COURT: What does that say? The section and
the page.
MR. SALKIN: All right. Section 1 of Article 14.
THE COURT: Section 1.
_. MR. SALKIN: Article 14 reads as follows:
“Effective December 31st, 1966, vacations for [20]
+ on employees, as defined in Section 2—
/
71
THE COURT: What does Section 2 say? How does
that define it? As defined in Section 2?
MR. SALKIN: “In order to qualify for the forego-
ing vacations, an employee who has been continuously
employed for two or more December 31st’s and has sen-
iority on the current December 31st, must have received
earnings in at least 25 work weeks in the 12 months
preceding the current December 31st.”
THE COURT: All right. Now, did this gentleman re
ceive earnings in those preceding 25 months while he was
in military service?
MR. SALKIN: He received earnings in the years in
question, nine weeks in 1967 before entering military
service, and 13 weeks in 1968 after leaving.
THE COURT: But that says 25 weeks, doesn’t it?
MR. SALKIN: That does.
THE COURT: Well, how does he qualify under that
section if it says 25 weeks, and he only worked the nine
and 13 weeks?
MR. SALKIN: Because this ease is very similar to
the Accardi vs. Pennsylvania Railroad case.
THE COURT: Forget about the other case. I am
asking you a simple question. You are saying there
that [21] for the man to be eligible for vacation benefits,
he must work at least 25 weeks in a year; right?
MR. SALKIN: It says he must work—he must have
received earnings. It does not say he must work.
THE COURT: But he must have received earnings in
25 weeks in a year.
MR. SALKIN: That is correct.
THE COURT: Now, did he work during the years
1967 and 1968 and receive earnings for 25 weeks?
MR. SALKIN: He did not receive earnings for 25
weeks in each of those calendar years.
THE COURT: For the year 1967, he only received
earnings for nine weeks.
MR. SALKIN: That is correct.
THE COURT: And through the year 1968, he re-
ceived earnings for how many weeks?
MR. SALKIN: Thirteen.
~
a
Gia Laskin ee aadl gabe OO baits
72
THE COURT: Well, then, how can you say that he
comes within the provisions of that contract?
MR. SALKIN: Because of the interpretation of the
Accardi case by the Supreme Court, sir.
THE COURT: But I am not talking about that. I am
talking about that contract.
MR. SALKIN: The contract—
THE COURT: You will-admit that, as far as [22]
the contract is concerned, and as far as what he did, he
only worked nine weeks in the years 1967 and he only
worked 13 weeks in the year 1968.
MR. SALKIN: That is correct.
THE COURT: So as far as the contract is concerned,
he does not fall within the terms and provisions of it.
MR. SALKIN: That is correct, sir.
THE COURT: I asked you.
MR. SALKIN: That’s it. Very good.
Now, may I—Do you want to hear my argument, sir?
THE COURT: I want to know if you are through
with your case.
MR. SALKIN: All right, sir. Now, I wish to enter
into evidence—
THE COURT: I am giving you a chance to present
your case. We wi!! have the arguments after all the
evidence is in.
(Whereupon, a document was marked Plaintiff’s Ex-
hibit No. 2 for identification. )
MR. SALKIN: At this point, sir, I wish to enter into
evidence, having first had it marked for identification, 2
photostatic copy of the plaintiff’s discharge certificate—
{23} THE COURT: Admitted.
MR. SALKIN: —indicating an honorable release from
active duty.
THE COURT: Admitted.
(Whereupon, Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 2 was received
in evidence. )
MR. SALKIN: It will be Plaintiff’s B, I believe.
SESE SSIES: aici
73
THE CLERK: Two.
MR. SALKIN: Two? I have no further evidence as
such, to offer at this stage.
THE COURT: Defendant may proceed.
MR. SHOOP: I have no evidence, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mefencant may proceed with your
argument.
Have you men submitted to the Court your suggested
NES ENS LOOT LEI MOET FPR I
sxe Poes
findings of fact and conclusions of law? Or are you.
in agreement as to all the facts?
MR. SHOOP: As to all the facts, Your Honor, I be-
lieve we are in agreement.
THE COURT: You are in agreement. Well, you know
the Court is bound to make findings of fact and con-
clusions of law. So, since there is no dispute bétween
you, then the findings of fact of this Court would be
what is in your stipulation.
[24] MR. SHOOP: I would agree, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is that agreeabie?
MR. SALKIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Now, do you have anything in your
stipulation to the effect that, consistent with several
of the questions that I have asked, that as far as the
collective bargaining agreement is concerned, it is not in
dispute that in the year 1967, this plaintiff only worked
nine weeks, and in the year 1968, only 18 weeks? That
is in your stipulation?
MR. SHOOP: I believe so, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is it in your stipulation that there is
no provision in the collective bargaining agreement that
sets forth or provides that while a person is in military
service, he does not—and when he is not actually work-
ing for the defendant—he is not considered as being ac-
tually at work?
MR. SHOOP: There is no affirmative statement of
that im the stipulation, but I would believe that Mr.
Salkin and I could stipulate that that is the case under
the collective bargaining agreement.
.THE COURT: Well, he has told me that, and I am
asking if you agree.
JU aap ees a ee I a
i RIA ay HIN SO See
74
MR. SHOOP: I agree.
MR. SALKIN: I don’t agree with that, Your [25]
Honor.
THE COURT: Pardon?
MR. SALKIN: I can’t agree to that, Your Honor.
THECOURT: You just did it twice, about five min-
utes age
MR. ‘ALKIN: I agreed that he has to be on the pay-
roll and have received earnings, but I did not—I can-
not agre that he must have worked, or that he would
have worked.
THECOURT: You don’t listen, my friend. I said,
there isno provision in the collective bargaining agree-
ment tht says, in so many words, that while a person
is in miitary service, he is considered as actually work-
ing andearning wages from his employer.
MR. ‘ALKIN: No. That is correct.
THECOURT: That is all I asked you, for the third
time.
Do yu agree?
MR. ;5HOOP: I agree, Your Horor.
THECOURT: All right.
MR. SHOOP: I have prepared a brief, a pretrial
memoradum of law.
MR. ;:ALKIN: I would ask the Court for leave to file
a briefon behalf of the plaintiff.
[26] THE COURT: This case was supposed to be
ready fir final adjudication. What do you want me to
delay itagain for? You mean you have not filed every
brief tht you want to file?
MR. 3ALKIN: No, sir. I haven’t filed a brief as
yet. I ‘an have one in a few days. .
THECOURT: I apparently did not specify and set it
out theway I intended. Let’s see what I say.
I do 10t like to delay these things. If I have a matter
for detemination, I like to decide it as soon as I leave
the Berh. Sometim.y I do it right from the Bench.
You ay I never tha you to file a brief in this case?
MR. sALKIN: That is correct, sir.
THECOURT: Well, I made a mistake. ;
y
75
You have no other brief you want to file, except what
you have given to the Court today? ~
MR. SHOOP: That is right, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I commend you, sir, for having the
brief ready during the trial. All counsel should do that,
without the Judge writing it on a blackboard.
Please do it in the future.
MR. SALKIN: Very good, sir.
THE COURT: Because the easiest, the best, and the
most proper time for a Judge to decide a case that is
[27] not involved, like this one, is as soon as he hears
it, while it is fresh in his mind.
Go ahead, sir.
MR. SHOOP: If Your Honor will just excuse me
a second.
THE COURT: You can have all the time you want.
‘
MR. SHOOP: Your Honor, I would submit to the
Court that this case is identical to the one that was
decided by this Court in the case of Fees vs. Bethlehem
Steel. J have cited it in my pretrial memorandum.
THE COURT: Here is the opinion; I wrote it.
MR. SHOOP: I am sure this Court is quite aware of
it. As a matter of fact, I spent some time when I pre-
pared my pretrial memorandum, if I just wouldn’t take
the Fees case and take your opinion and write it dvwn
as a pretrial memorandum and submit it back to the
Court, because I think-—
THE COURT: Of course, I could be wrong.
MR. SHOOP: I think Your Honor covered all of the
points that Mr. Salkin has raised here today and will
raise, particularly those of the Accardi and the Eagar
case.
I believe that this Court, in Fees, did distinguish
Eagar from the instant case and from this case before
the Court.
[28] As you recognized, the -Supreme Court’s decision
in Eagar does not unequivocally lend support to the
Government’s position here. ,
TI would submit that in Hagar, the plaintiff had earned
his vacation and was automatically entitled to the benefits
under the provisions of that contract.
sph ager oe |
76
As Your Honor has recognized, in this case there is a
provision that a man must have earnings in 25 weeks
in order to qualify to be an eligible employee for vacation.
~ In this case, the plaintiff did not earn the requisite 25
weeks’ earnings. He earned nine in 1967 and 13 in :
> 1968.
‘ I would submit that it is still. the law of the Third
_ Circuit, as this Court again recognized, of Dougherty vs.
General Motors, and in that case, our Third Circuit
recognized that it is not a violation of the veteran’s
re-employment rights to have a work requirement re-
quiring that a person work so many ed have so
~much earnings to qualify for a vacation
This is the law of our Third Circuit; and until changed
by the Third Circuit or unequivocally changed by the
Supreme Court of the United States, I submit that this
is still the law.
So, therefore, Your Honor, based on your decision in
Fees, based on the Third Circuit’s case in Dougherty,
I would submit that this case falls squarely within those
rules, that an earnings requirement as set forth in the
[29] collective bargaining agreement is not a violation
of a returning veteran’s rights.
In my pretrial memorandum, I have submitted other
eases that would all hold-and support this Court’s de-
termination, including the Tenth Circuit—the Tenth and
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I would submit that if an employee is to be entitled
to more, his union representative and collective bargain-
ing representative would have negotiated such benefits
for that man. But in this contract, an employee is en-
titled to the minimum benefits required for a returning
veteran. —
I am sympathetic, as is this Court, towards the plight
of returning veterans. But in this case, the plaintiff
got his job back at an increased rate of pay; he got
additional vacation over and above that that he had
when he left; and he got on that escalator. All things that
2 were automatically accrued to him becausf of seniority,
he received.
77
Through no stretch of the imagination, under this
collective bargaining agreement, does vacation auiomati-
cally accrue to a person, unless he has worked the requisite
25 weeks or hau earnings in these requisite 25 weeks.
THE COURT: Well, how do you distinguish this
case from the case that your distinguished adversary,
Attorney Salkin, persist has application? The Supreme
Court of the United States has ruled, as I understand
his position, [80] that when a man is in military serv-
ice, it is the equivalent of working.
MR. SHOOP: I don’t believe that is what that case—
any case of the Supreme Court made the statement that
when a man is in the military service, it is the equivalent
of working. The Accardi case was not concerned with
vacation pay. It was concerned with severance pay.
In our case, it is not even working. We are one step
beyond that. A man must have earnings in 25 weeks
to qualify for a vacation. He must have earnings. He
must do more than work. He must have earnings.
Maybe this is a distinction without a difference, but
I would submit that it is more of a requirement than
just working, to have earnings in each of 25 weeks; and
I submit that Accardi does not make the statement that
Mr. Salkin would submit. I am—
THE COURT: I could not find it in a very careful
reading of the case, but he again is persisting that it
does provide it in substance.
Well, we will no doubt be enlightened on this some
day by somebody.
MR. SHOOP: Well, I would submit, Your Honor,
that this Court in Fees and our Third Circuit Court in
Dougherty has correctly found the law in regard to re-
turning veterans; and to open the door further, as coun-
sel for the [31] Government would suggest, is to open
the door to possibility of payments for the insurance
during the course of a man’s service, Blue Cross, hos-
pitalization, anything else that he may be entitled to,
that has commonly been recognized as earnings under
collective bargaining agreements; and, as Your Honor
is fully aware, under labor policy, you earn your vaca-
5
‘
a,
a
;
;
oe
RE AL oe
aoe tae rig
78
tion. You earn these benefits. They do not automatically
accrue, as the plaintiff would have us believe.
I thank you.
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Salkin.
You say something about a brief, sir. You discuss all
facts in your pretrial statement, and I do not know, un-
less you have something that you are going to place in
a brief different from what you presented to Court in |
the Fees case, what is the use of your rewriting it?
MR. SALKIN: My pretrial statement is not a com-
plete argument, sir.
THE COURT: Well, you have put in all. the facts
about your case. You do not need to repeat what is in
your pretrial statement.
MR. SALKIN: But I would like to argue the law,
sir.
THE COURT: I do not think I ever denied you the
right to argue the law. Your time is unlimited.
MR..SALKIN: That isn’t what I mean, sir. [32]
That is the purpose of my filing a brief.
THE COURT: You mean you want to argue today,
and you want to file a brief, and argue egain?
MR. SALKIN: No, sir. I want to argue today, and
simply follow up with a brief. That is all.
Let me first disabuse the Court of any notion that
I am advancing the theory that absence in the military
service is the equivalent of working. That is not what I
said the Accardi case held; and in fact, I do not see
that the Accardi case does so hold, and that is not the
theory that I advanced before this Court today.
What I am simply suggesting to the Court is that
under the particular and peculiar circumstances of this
case, in any event, that vacation benefits as applied here
are a perquisite of seniority; that these are benefits
which would have automatically accruec to the plaintiff
by his mere attachment to the work fores, by his con-
tinuity of employment, of his being on the payroll and
accruing seniority.
THE COURT: If he had worked 25 weeks in the year.
a |
79
MR. SALKIN: I cannot go along with that as a
qualification, sir.
THE C@URT: That is where we separate and go
off in different ways; and as I see it, it is going to
require-dn Appellate Court to tell us who is right, whether
[33] it is you or I.
MR. SALKIN: Yes, it may be so. However—
THE COURT: We will know this time next year.
Go ahead.
There is no difference between this case and the Fees
case.
MR. SALKIN: There are some very distinguishing
differences, I think, sir. In any event, whichever way
the Fees case—
THE COURT: I wish you would spell them out. I
fail to see them.
MR. SALKIN: Okay.. To begih with—
THE COURT: There is a difference in the number
of weeks that this young man worked during the year
1967 and 1968, and there is a difference in his work
and a difference in his wages. Certainly there are dif-
ferences, but I mean the basic, fundamental, legal issue
is the same, isn’t it?
MR. SALKIN: The fundamental, legal issues is thc
same.
THE COURT: That is all I asked.
MR. SALKIN: There are distinguishing factors,
though, in those cases,
THE COURT: Spell them out for me.
MR..SALKIN: All right. Number one, in the [34]
Fees case, as I recall, there was a work requirement that
the veteran or plaintiff have worked for a specific num-
ber of hours in order to qualify for vacation benefits.
commensurate with his seniority.
THE COURT: All right, you have hours in the Fees
case, and you have weeks in this case. oe
MR. SALKIN: Received earnings in a minimum of
25 work weeks.
THE COURT: And in this case, it is wages for 25
weeks,
™~
—ZA
| ee eee
tai ohana nda eins
80
MR. SALKIN: That is correct.
THE COURT: What is the difference?
MR. SALKIN: There is a difference—
THE COURT: To me, it is the same thing.
MR. SALKIN: The difference is the same—
THE COURT: I do not care whether it is earnings
or wages. o
MR. SALKIN: The difference is’ the same difference
that the Accardi case applied in the matter of severance
pay, where they determined that the real nature of the
benefits there was commensurate with seniority, because
of the fact that it had as its incentive, not added pay
for services performed, but a rew2rd for continuous
employment, a reward for continued attachment to the
work force.
. This is precisely the situation here.
[85] THE COURT: My goodness, my friend, if em-
ployers have to pay—I wish they could afford to do it
financially. If employers have to pay every young man
who is unfortunate enough to be called to serve his
country, what you say, they will go backrupt. They
cannot stay in business, because they are paying out
money and they get nothing in return for it.
MR. SALKIN:. Sir,,I submit to the Court that, even
if that were true or it should be true, that is a matter
for legislative consideration; and the statute as it pres-
ently reads and as applied by the Supreme Court, I sub-
mit to the Court, is otherwise.
THE COURT: But Congress can pass no law
impairs the obligation of a contract. If you have
lective bargaining agreement betwec. an employer and
the“union, and a gentleman, a member of the union,
Congress cannot pass a law that impairs the obligation
of that contract or changes it.
Congress, by the Selective Service Act, cannot read
something into a collective bargaining agreement that
does not exist, and no Court can.
MR. SALKIN: I submit that the Supreme Court—If
that is the terms on which this Court views it, then I
submit that the Supreme Court did just that.
81
THE COURT: I think maybe, with the new [36]
complement of the Supreme Court, if they rule that way,
they might change the rules.
MR..SALKIN: ~ Well, they have done it in a number
of cases, sir.
First of all, they established the escalator principle,
as I have cited before in the past, in the case of Fish-
gold vs. Oliver Dry Dock, and they followed up with the
Accardi ease, establishing the principle which I have just
cited; and of course, the Fishyold case has been reaffirmed
in many other cases since that time.
I submit also that the Ninth Cireuit Court, in* the ~
Eagar vs. Magma Copper case, in its decision at that
time, although it did come out at the time the Accardi
case carne out, did not—was not aware of the Accardi
decision, as evidenced by the fact that in’ a recent case,
the majority of the Court in the Ninth Circuit has now
adopted the former dissenting view of Judge Madden;
and that case is found at—is entitled Locaynia vs. Amer-
ican Airlines. That is dated March 17, 1972, not yet
officially reported, but it may be found in 67 Labor Cases,
Paragraph 12,537. What the Court said there was as
follows:
“The narrow issue presented in this: Was this vaca-
tion pay a perquisite of seniority, as appellants claim, or
was it within the category of other benefits, as American
contends? Resolution of the issue turns on the appropriate
[37] interpretation of Accardi vs. Pennsylvania Railroad
and Eagar vs. Magma Copper Co.,” citing his own de-
cision.
They went on to state, after citing the Supreme Court’s
holding defining seniority, and the escalator principle,
they discussed the per curiam reversal of this Court’s
decision in the Mayma Copper Co.
THE COURT: Which Court?
MR. SALKIN: This Ninth Circuit Court, and **on
said, ‘“‘We read the Supreme Court summary reversal of
Eagar as an explicit rejection of American’s contention.”
That is, that vacation pay is another benefit, rather than
¥ PRL CLT, Vee RP BAP - RM pasion de rn Oe ie ied EM eo “ . .
. : ” _ FLL AS EY RPE ee er tiaimemam Ml
RG Deter -
82
a seniority perquisite, and therefore reversed the judg-
ment of the lower Court and found for the plaintiffs.
Now. I wish the Court would recognize—
THE COURT: Well, all Accardi involved, my friend,
was the question of: severance pay allowance for World
War II veterans who were being phased out by the
railroad,
The Court held the railroad was required to compute
the time spent by the employees in the military in de-.
termining severance allowance, which was based on years
of compensated service, as defined in the collective bar-
gaining agreement as one day worked per month for a
minimum of seven months out of the year.
In so holdin®, the Court felt a liberal construction of
the term senior'ty was necessary, and that the [38} in-
tention of Congress, as expressed in the Act, was to
preserve for the returning veterans the rights and benefits
which would have automatically accrued to them had they
remained in private employment rather than ‘responding
to the eall of their .duties.
The Court, in Accardi, was concerned with insuring
that veterans would be properly credited with, years of
seniority: and severance payments in Accardi were based
primarily on length of service. It had to do with what
these men were to get as far as their severance allow-
ance pay. It did not have anything to do with vacation.
MR. SALKIN: No, but every Court that has since
discussed the Accardi éase has applied the principie of
the Accardi case to vacation benefits; and I can cite—
THE COURT: I have neyer read one that holds that.
MR. SALKIN: Well, I think—
THE COURT: Well, which one holds that, under the
facts that you have in this case, this gentleman is en-
titled to be considered as having worked 25 weeks in the
years 1967 and 1968?
MR. SALKIN: Morton vs. Gulf Railroad, Gulf, ‘Loiis-
jana.
THE COURT: What is the citation? Give me all .
the facts of -that case.
- [39] MR. SALKIN: Let’s see if I have—I may have
the entire opinion here, sir.
83
THE COURT: Don’t you know what is in your cases?
You should know what you are standing on. You argue
that a certain case has certain provisions and certain
value. Otherwise, I could hear this under Rule 78. I
do not need to hear your argument.
You wanted to be heard, so-you certainly should tell
me what is in your cases that you say supports your
position. Do you tell me you do not know?
MR. SALKIN: I have—yes, sir. I have the—
THE COURT: What is the citation?
MR. SALKIN: You said you wanted the facts of
the case?
THE COURT: I want the citition, and I want the
facts.
MR. SALKIN: The citation is 405 Fed. 2nd 415. -
THE COURT: What Circuit?
MR. SALKIN: This is the—
MR. SHOOP: Eighth Circuit.
MR. SALKIN: Eighth Circuit, sir.
THE COURT: ll right.. What are the facts in this .
case? ._- °
MR. SALKIN: The appellant, Robert Morton, [40]
begari working as an electrician for the Gulf, Mobile & °
Ohio Railroad Company in 1950 and continued in his
employment until April 6, 1951, when he left his position
to serve in the United States Air Force for a period of
four years. On April the 18th, 1955, five days after his
honorable discharge from the Air Force, Morton resumed .
and has since continued his employment.
In May of 1967, Morton instituted this action seat
his employer for recovery of earned vacation pay and
for a decree directing the railroad to credit him with
the time spent in the military in calculating the length
of his paid vacation.
Morton contends that the railroad has denied him
seniority rights, contrary to Section 9 of the Universal
Military Training and Service Act.
Federal jurisdiction having been established, the Dis-
trict Court denied him—
THE COURT: ‘Denied him seniority rights. That has
not been denied in this case.
~y 2 EAS OMEN OSA AORN So |
Be OTE SOR
Pen SA eer ne
jal inne 0 be
S4
MR. SALKIN: We allege that it has, sir; that vaca-
tion pay benefits are seniority rights.
THE COURT: It depends how the Court is phrasing
that, and using that phrase, that denied him seniority
rights. Do you mean they use that, by failing to pay him
his vacation, they denied him seniority rights?
MR; SALKIN: That is, by failing to—No—[41] to
award nim paid vacation, yes, sir.
Rights and obligations of the employer and the em-
ployees are granted paid vacations, the length of
bargaiming agreements. These agreements specified that
employees are granted paid vaactions, the length of
which is determined for each employee according to the
number of consecutive years in which he has performed a
minimum number of days of compensated service for the
railroad.
THE-COURT: They are seniority rights; right? -
MR. SALKIN: I presume so, yes.
- THE COURT: You cannot presume so. It either is
or it isn’t.
MR. SALKIN: Well, it is.
THE COURT: All right. ; 7
MR. SALKIN: The railroad considered that Morton
must have insufficient compensated service in each year
following his 1955 re-employment to qualify him under
the then effective collective bargaining’ agreement for ten
days of paid vacation-in both 1966 and 1967, which is
the normal vacation for employees with ten consecutive,
years of active service with the railroad.
In seeking additional vacation benefits, Morton con-
tends that, for the purpose of determining his vacation
benefits, the time spent in military service should have
been !42] considered as equivalent to compensated em-
plovmeiit with the railroad.
With such calculations, Morton had achieved 15 years
of continuous service with the railroad by the beginning
of 1966, and accordingly, he asserted entitlement to 15
days of vacation pay in the year 1966 and in the year
1967.
ee Ser . SSE
THE COURT: Your collective bargaining agreement
differs. This one says that a man has to actually work,
work 25 weeks in the year, to be eligible.
MR. SALKIN: But that does not say so, sir.
THE COURT: This collective bargaining agreement
does.
MR. SALKIN: No, sir. It says that he must have
received earnings. It does not say he must have worked.
THE COURT: What is the difference?
MR. SALKIN: For 25 weeks. .
THE COURT: If you receive earnings or work? If
you do not get paid, you do not receive earnings unless
you work.
MR. SALKIN: In theory, sir, he could receive earn-
ings in 25 consecutive work weeks by working one or
two days a week. ;
THE COURT: If this country is coming to that,
what is going to happen? Industry is going to close its
[43] doors. There won’t be any jobs for anybody.
Go ahead. I just cannot see your philosophy, my
friend, but you go ahead. Maybe you will change me.
There are enough give-away programs in this country,
without making industry pay a man when he does not
work.
MR. SALKIN: Now, the Court now goes on to «ite
Section 9(c) of the Universal Military Training and |
Service Act, and reads, “Shall be considered as having
been on-furlough or leave of absence during his period
of training and service in the Armed Forces, shal! be so
restored without loss of seniority,” and that is italicized.
THE COURT: We all agree to that.
MR. SALKIN: “And shall be entitled to participate
in insurance and other benefits offered.”
THE COURT: I agree to that.
MR. SALKIN: All right. The appellee railroad, in
denying Morton’s claim to an increased vacation en-
titlement, contends that vacation pay is not an element
of Section 9 senisrity, but rather should be considered
as one of the other benefits. for the purposes of that
section. It is urged that if another employee similarly
situated to Morton had been on leave of absence from the
f:
Se |
»
-—~— WRRLREE
;
:
4
ech)
ry sii sen Ka
CA Vina SS ke hid Bi a oe Se
aps a aA LRTI TE RO Ae
86
railroad, rather than in military service, for the same
four years, he would not have performed compensated
service, as defined by the [44] collective bargaining
agreement, and would not have been entitled to more
than ten days of vacation pay in 1966 and in 1967.
The issue here, however, s whether the vacation pay
is a seniority right under -he statute. if so, Morton’s
service time counts. If not, Morton is ‘uy be treated as
any other employee who had beén on non-military leave.
Morton’s right to increase vacation benefits is a neces-
sary perquisite of his Section 9 seniority right.
We hold that the railroad’s failure in calculating vaca-
tion pay to credit Morton with compensated service time
for the period in which he was in the Armed Forces
violated Section 9(c) of the Act.
Without this inclusion, Morton would not be aecorded
reinstatement in his employment without loss of seniority,
as iS required by the Act. Eagar vs. Magma Copper
Co., 389 U.S. 323 (1967), and Accardi vs. Pennsylvania
Railroad Co., 383 U.S. 225 (1966).
So here, we have the Circuit—
THE COURT: And that collective bargaining agree-
ment had the same provisions in it as the collective
bargaining agreement kas in this case?
MR. SALKIN: All it defined was compensated serv-
ice. Compensated service—
THE COURT: Sir, you answer my question. [45]
Does the collective bargaining agreement in the case that
you have have the same phraseology in it as the col-
lective bargaining agreement has in the case before the
Court? Or is it different, and if so, how is it different?
MR. SALKIN: It is different in the following. The
collective bargaining agreement in Morton read as fol-
lows:
“Effective with the calendar year 1965, an annual
vacation of 15 consecutive work days with pay will be
granted to each employee covered by this agreement who
renders compensated service on not less than 100 days
during the preceding calendar year, and who has 15
or more years of continuous service, and who. during
tae
87
such period of continuous service, renders compensated
service on not less than 100 days, 183 days in the years
1950 to 1959, inclusive, 151 days in 1949, and 160 days
in each of such years prior to 1949, in each of 15 of
such years, not necessarily consecutive.”
THE COURT: And the collective bargaining agree-
ment before the Court is 25 wees a year of compensated
service.
MR. SALKIN: Of—All right, of having received
earnings. You might—It sounds as if it were for com-
pensated—
THE COURT: Ard you believe the phrase, “having
received earnings”, to #< synonymous, or mean exactly
the same thing as having received—-You are saying that
the [46] phrase, “having received earnings’, and “com-
pensated service” mean exactly the same thing.
MR. SALKIN: Asa matter of fact, I think it is even
more liberal than compensated service, because the word
service implies work, whereas received earnings does not
necessarily imply work.
THE COURT: Well, nobody is going to pay some-
body earnings if he does not work, unless they want to
go out of business.
MR. SALKIN: However, this was the agreement in
the Morton case, which I just read to you, sir. This is
cited in a footnote in the decision.
THE COURT: What is that Cireuit again?
MR. SALKIN: That we be Eighth Circuit, I believe.
THE COURT: Who are the Judges? I know them all.
MR. SALKIN: Who are the Judges? Vogel, Lay
and Bright.
Now, would you like me to continue with that?
THE COURT: Sir;how you want to argue this case
is up to you. I just asked you some questions that I had.
MR. SALKIN: All right. We are benefited by those
teachings of the Supreme Court in similar [47] contro-
versies. In Accardi vs. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., supra,
an employer granted, pursuant to a union agreement,
separation allowances to employees whose services were
terminated by the employer. The allowances increased in
SPECTR RT A, Renan eS
oi SUA Rasa ee Rae AOL
See ae , xe wi as Salata ten Bae eR
Z Ra ee ee ahethinedihe 4 4
88
preportion to the length of time an employee had ren-
dered compensated service.
The Supreme Court held that the employer was re-
quired to include the period of military service of re-
“employed veterans in computing the amount of their
severance pay. Such separation allowances were included
within the seniority rights guaranteed by the Act.
Similarly, in Eagar vs. Magma, supra, a collective
bargaining agreement provided for paid vacations at the
end of a work year to any employee who had been em-
ployed for at least one year and had worked 75 per cent
of the shifts available to him that year. The agreement
also stipulated for holiday pay to those employees who
worked the shifts immediately preceding and immediately
subsequent to the holiday, and who had been on; the
payroll for three consecutive months prior to the holiday.
Employee Eagar began working for the company on
March 12, 1958, and entered military service one week
before the one-year anniversary date of his employment.
Following his military discharge, he returned to company
employment on May 2nd, 1962.
Although Eagar had worked 75 per cent of the [48]
shifts for the year ending March 12, 1959, and had
worked the shifts both before and after Memorial Day
and Independence Day in 1962, Magma refused him
vacation benefits and holiday pay for those periods be-
cause, one, as to vacation pay, he was not in the service
of the company at the end of the vacation earning year,
as was required by the contract; and two, as to holiday
pay,. he had not been on the compay payroll for three
consecutive months prior to either holiday. The Ninth
Circuit sustained the employer’s position at 380 Fed.
2nd 318 (1966).
THE COURT: How do you distinguish the Doug-
herty vs. General Motors case in this Circuit, which holds
that vacation eligibility is a benefit to which a veteran is
not entitled if he has not fulfilled a work requirement for
eligibility?
MR. SALKIN: That depends, sir, on the nature of
the work—
89
THE COURT: And our Circuit has ruled since 1949,
and certiorari was denied, and they have never changed
that rule of law. \
MR. SALKIN: I submit, sir. that that depends pretty
much on the nature cf the so-called work requirement.
THE COURT: But didn’t our Circuit rule that way?
MR. SALKIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And isn’t it the duty of a [49] Dis-
trict Court to follow the rule of law as enunciated by
the Circuit in—which the District Court sits?
MR. SALKIN:* That is true.
THE COURT: So, whether I agree or whether I
disagree with the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit in Dougherty vs. General Motors, I
have no discretion I can apply. It does not matter if all
the other nine Circuits plus the District of Columb
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.