The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Frank M. Swacker when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 2, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Carmen)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the current agreement, particularly Rule 9, and Vacation Agreement, particularly Article 12 (a), Carman C. H. Kitchen was unjustly dealt with when the carrier declined to pay him travel time and for meals and lodging at El Dorado, Kansas, from February 1, 1949 to February 14, 1949, both dates inclusive.
(a) Additionally compensate this employe for travel time from 1:50 A. M. to 6:08 A. M. on February 1 and from 8 :30 P. M. to 11:58 P. M. on February 14, in the amount of 73/¢ hours.
(b) Reimburse this employe for meals and lodging from February 1 to February 14 in the amount of $43.25.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On January 31, 1949 Carman C. H. Kitchen, and hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was furloughed at him home point, Fort Scott, Kansas. Effective February 1, 1949 Carman I. S. Harrod, employed at El Dorado, Kansas was scheduled to begin his annual vacation of twelve days. A few days prior to February 1 Master Mechanic Hanna called claimant by telephone at his home in Fort Scott, advising him of the vacancy at El Dorado and asked if he would be willing to fill Carman Harrod's place during his absence on vacation. Claimant agreed to fill the vacancy and reported for work at El Dorado on February 1.
When claimant's relief assignment concluded on February 14 he returned to his home point, Fort Scott, following which he filled out Form 1361, mailing it to Master Mechanic Hanna, claiming travel time, meals and lodging expense. On March 21 Master Mechanic Hanna wrote the following letter to claimant
Therefore, Rule 9, which contemplates "Temporary Vacancies," could not be applicable to periods of time while the regular employe is absent on vacation.
and that was what was done here. There being no other employes available at El Dorado, we notified the senior furloughed employe, Mr. Kitchen, and gave him the opportunity to perform the work at El Dorado, not under Article 12 of the Vacation Agreement, or Rule 9 of the working agreement, but in accordance with the provisions of Rule 23 of the working agreement which we have previously discussed at considerable length.
Mr. C. H. Kitchen, the claimant here, was a furloughed employe and not a regular vacation relief employe, hence he could have no right to work at El Dorado except under the provisions of Rule 23 of the effective working agreement, and that rule specifically provides that
The carrier's side of this dispute may be summed up in the following manner
Based upon the facts contained herein this claim should be denied as being without support under the effective working agreement, the Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941, contrary to long continuous practice and wholly without merit as a matter of equity.
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. 1430-13 375
It is believed this case is not to be distinguished from Award 1376. The fact that in the present case the vacancy that was to be filled was a vacation vacancy; whereas in the case covered by Award 1376, it was a special leave, makes no material difference. It is considered that Rule 9 is applicable, as held in that Award. To make Rule 23 operative as contended by the carrier, it would be incumbent on the carrier to notify the man that he was being offered an opportunity to exercise his seniority at his own expense. It is conceivable in such case he would not embrace the opportunity.