Lithonia Hi Tek-Vermillion
Labor Arbitration
109 Lab. Arb. Rep. 775 (1997)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Under an agreement between Lithonia Hi Tek-Vermillion (Lithonia) (defendant) and a union (plaintiff), there were provisions for mandatory and voluntary overtime. The agreement required equal distribution among different job classifications “insofar as possible.” Lithonia maintained records of the overtime each employee worked. The records documented when each employee worked overtime and when he declined. Lithonia reset the records once a year. The union performed a statistical analysis of the overtime records, which revealed two disparities. First, the union showed that first-shift employees were generally afforded over 16 more hours of overtime than second-shift employees in many job classifications. Second, for job classifications with no second-shift employees, the union showed that the overtime difference for the same job classification often exceeded eight hours. Lithonia did not present evidence to contradict these overtime disparities, but it did offer (and the arbitrator admitted) evidence of prior grievance settlements involving overtime disparities. Lithonia and the union agreed to arbitrate whether Lithonia violated the overtime equal-distribution provision, and if so, what the proper remedy should be.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Franckiewicz, Arbitrator)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
