A contract clause gave employees holiday pay if they worked the day before or the day after a holiday. It also allowed holiday pay to laid-off employees who actually worked the week before or week after the week of the holiday. This was to keep the company from laying off employees near a holiday to save money.

The clause became the subject of a grievance when employees went out on strike. Some employees returned from the strike on December 23, worked on December 24 and 26, and were paid holiday pay. Some employees could not return to work until December 27 because of the problems involved in starting up the idle plant and they were not paid. The union claimed the employees were on layoff from December 23 to December 27 and that the contract required that they be paid. The company claimed the clause only protected employees who were idle through layoff not because of a strike.

Decision:

The arbitrator found in the company's favor. He pointed out that the employees were not laid off "for lack of work" but had gone out on strike and could not begin work again because of problems starting up an idle plant. The contract clause did not apply.[1]

Could the arbitrator's decision be seen as penalizing employees for the strike? Why or why not.