(Download) "Schettino v. Administrator" by Supreme Court of Connecticut ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Schettino v. Administrator
- Author : Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Release Date : January 14, 1951
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
This is an appeal by an employer from the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining an award of the unemployment commissioner in favor of the plaintiff. He was an employee at the New Haven plant of the American Steel and Wire Company, hereinafter called the company, and was a member of the union which as the bargaining agent had negotiated a contract with the company. This contract provided that eligible employees would be entitled to a vacation with pay each year. Employees in the service of the company from one to five years were to receive one week, those in service from five to twenty-five years, two weeks, and those in service twenty-five years or longer, three weeks. The employee could specify the vacation period he desired, or the plant management and grievance committee could agree upon such a period, but the company retained the final right to schedule the vacation period between May 1 and October 1 in each year and to allot the vacation time or change the allotments made as it might see fit. The contract stipulated that the employer ""retains the exclusive rights to manage the business and plants and to direct the working forces, including ""the right to relieve employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons. It further stated that a period of temporary shutdown in any department for any reason between June 1 and October 1, unless other periods are mutually agreed upon, may be designated as comprising the vacation period for any employees of the department who are eligible for vacations."" No vacation period was agreed upon and on April 28, 1949, the company posted a notice to its employees that the plant would close for a two-week vacation period between 7 a.m. on July 30 and 7 a.m. on August 15. This notice indicated that construction work was to be performed during the shutdown period and stated that those employees who were required to work during the two weeks would be notified by their supervisor. The plaintiff, who was eligible for only one week of vacation, received a full week's pay for the first week