Interpeting Labor Agreement

The following is from a labor agreement.

An employee who is unable to work his regular assignment on a calendar day as a result of working on the preceding trip and not being available due to the Hours of Service Law will be allowed the earnings of his missed assignment for the calendar day with a maximum of eight ( hours pay.


I read the meaning to be a employee affected, if working a two day assignment, is entitled to pay for each calendar missed. Am I correct?

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by keat

The following is from a labor agreement.

An employee who is unable to work his regular assignment on a calendar day as a result of working on the preceding trip and not being available due to the Hours of Service Law will be allowed the earnings of his missed assignment for the calendar day with a maximum of eight ( hours pay.


I read the meaning to be a employee affected, if working a two day assignment, is entitled to pay for each calendar [day] missed. Am I correct?

As I see it, under the circumstances you mentioned he couldn't get paid for more than one day.

8)

sorry I am completly confused for this agreement !!?



Lucy ( in mixed-up)

[RonBee]

Well, if he is going to get a maximum of eight hours pay then that would not be for more than one calendar day. (It is a little confusing.)

8)

Hi,

The offending word here is "trip".

What trip?

To where?

It would be perfectly logical except for that word.

:?

In the sentence "unable to work his regular assignment on a calendar day" we assume that we are only dealing with one calendar day. Therefore, if an employee misses two calendar days of work, this rule would be invoked twice: once for one day, enabling the employee to receive a maximum of eight hours pay; and a second time for the second day. enabling the employee to claim another (up to) eight hours pay.

It's no different to a rule saying that if you post a letter you pay 20 cents. The rule doesn't say what would happen if you post a second one, but I bet you would all expect the same rule to be invoked again .....

[RonBee]

The employee in question is being paid for not working. There is nothing in the phrase "a maximum of eight hours pay" to indicate that it is supposed to be eight hours per day. If the agreement was meant to indicate that the employee was to be paid for not working for two consecutive days it certainly would have specified that. There is no indication that the phrase "a maximum of eight hours pay" is supposed to apply to two days or more. The idea is to pay the employee for work lost, not simply to pay him for staying home.

8)

[Lib]

Could the 'trip' refer to the fact the the worker was driving? In most countries, a driver can only do a certain number of hours per day / week. I think it is referring to the fact that if a driver has filled his quota on a 'trip' he is then entitled to a day off with pay. He will be paid for 8 hours work regardless of the number of extra hours he did on the trip. (Basically a way of getting drivers to do loads of extra hours and only paying them for 8 hours)
Any comments?

[Red5]

That sounds very feasible, Lib.

[RonBee]

I would need more context to be sure. That sure wouldn't be a very good deal for the employee.

8)