The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George A. Cook when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 2, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (MACHINISTS)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: That Machinist Helper L. Lavender was unjustly dismissed from the service under the current collective agreement, and that accordingly the carrier be ordered to reinstate him to all service rights with pay for all time lost as result of said dismissal beginning with 3 P. M. March 11, 1946.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Machinist Helper L . Lavender, hereafter referred to as the claimant, was regularly employed by the carrier on the 3 P. M. shift in the roundhouse at Dupo, Illinois, with a seniority date as such of 9-12-44.
The claimant was summoned to a hearing at 1 P. M. March 11, 1946, "charged with failure to report for his regular shift at 3 P. M., March 9, 1946," and the submitted copy of said hearing record is identified as Exhibit 1.
The collective agreement effective July 1, 1936, as subsequently amended is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that the carrier violated provisions of rules of the controlling agreement, particularly Rule 32 (c) and (d), reading-
Wherein the claimant was not properly notified under provisions of Rule 32 (c) herewith quoted. Refer to page 1 of employes' Exhibit No. 1, quoting question by Master Mechanic Losch:
tends that Mr. Lavender was not unjustly dismissed from service, nor was he dismissed in violation of any part of the collective bargaining agreement under which he was working.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
There is conflicting evidence in this case. The carrier does not prove that Lavender was not sick and the employes do not prove that be was sick. In view of the whole record and the circumstances cited in the record-the fact that Lavender had been previously cautioned about laying off without permission and then not literally following instructions, it must be found that he was unjustly dismissed but cannot be held blameless to some degree.
Claim sustained as to reinstatement and service rights and disallowed as to compensation or pay for time lost.
Name of Organization: Railway Employes' Department, A. F. of L.
(Machinists)
Upon application of the representative of the employes involved in the above award, that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the parties as to its meaning, as provided for in Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made
This request for an interpretation involves the contents of the Vacation Agreement part of the general agYeement.
Therefore, if there be a dispute as to what his rights are under the Vacation Agreement, these rights must be resolved in accordance with Article XIV of the Vacation Agreement.