## Facts

- Lithonia Hi Tek-Vermillion (Lithonia) and a union were parties to a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) addressing overtime opportunities.
- The CBA provided for both mandatory and voluntary overtime and required overtime to be distributed equally among employees in a job classification “insofar as possible.”
- Lithonia maintained overtime records for each employee that documented when the employee worked overtime and when the employee declined overtime.
- Lithonia reset the overtime records once each year.
- The union conducted a statistical analysis of Lithonia’s overtime records and asserted two main disparities:
  - In many job classifications, first-shift employees generally received more than 16 additional overtime hours compared to second-shift employees.
  - In job classifications with no second-shift employees, overtime differences among employees within the same classification often exceeded eight hours.
- Lithonia did not present evidence contradicting the union’s disparity calculations based on the overtime records.
- Lithonia offered evidence of prior grievance settlements involving overtime disparities, and the arbitrator admitted that evidence.
- The parties submitted the dispute to arbitration to decide whether Lithonia violated the CBA’s equal-distribution provision and, if so, what remedy should be ordered.

## Issues

1. Whether Lithonia violated the CBA requirement to distribute overtime equally within job classifications “insofar as possible,” given the disparities shown by the overtime records and the union’s statistical analysis.
2. If a violation occurred, what remedy should be awarded for unequal overtime distribution.

## Decision

- The arbitrator found that Lithonia violated the CBA’s equal-distribution requirement based on the substantial overtime disparities shown in the employer’s own records and the lack of a persuasive operational explanation in the arbitration record.
- The arbitrator treated the union’s statistical analysis of the overtime records as strong evidence of unequal overtime distribution, especially where the employer did not rebut the calculations with contrary data or detailed justification.
- The arbitrator considered evidence of prior grievance settlements but did not treat those settlements as resolving the current dispute or excusing ongoing deviations from the CBA standard.
- The arbitrator directed corrective relief aimed at bringing overtime distribution into line with the contractual equal-distribution requirement and addressing the proven disparities.

## Legal Principles

- A CBA clause requiring equal distribution of overtime “insofar as possible” imposes a real contractual limit on employer discretion; it allows exceptions for legitimate operational needs but not large, recurring disparities without support in the record.
- A union may prove unequal distribution through analysis of the employer’s overtime records, including data on overtime worked and overtime declined.
- When a union presents substantial disparity evidence drawn from the employer’s own records, the employer’s failure to provide a specific, record-based explanation for the differences weighs against the employer.
- Prior grievance settlements may be relevant background, but they do not waive contract rights for later periods unless they clearly and expressly do so.

## Conclusion

In *Lithonia Hi Tek-Vermillion*, the arbitrator addressed whether overtime was being distributed equally “insofar as possible” under the CBA and relied heavily on the employer’s yearly overtime records and the union’s statistical analysis showing sizable differences between shifts and among employees within classifications; with no meaningful rebuttal data from Lithonia and no record-supported justification for the magnitude of the disparities, the arbitrator found a contract violation and ordered corrective relief to remedy unequal overtime distribution.


Lithonia Hi Tek-Vermillion, 109 Lab. Arb. Rep. 775 (1997)