The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Adolph E. Wenke when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 114, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Machinists)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: That in accordance with the applicable agreements the Carrier be ordered to compensate A. Romero, retired Machinist, five (5) additional days' vacation pay.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: A. Romero, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was employed by the Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines), hereinafter referred to as the carrier, as a machinmst at the Bayshore Shops, Bayshore, California. Claimant has been in the continuous employment of the carrier from March 1, 1923, until he retired on October 16, 1953, in accordance with the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act.
Prior to retiring on October 16, 1953, claimant had qualified for a vacation in the year 1954 by rendering compensated service of not less than one hundred thirty-three (133) days during the preceding calendar year of 1953.
Upon retiring claimant was paid by the carrier in an amount of money equivalent to ten (10) days' vacation.
This dispute has been handled with the carrier up to and including the highest officer so designated by the company, with the result that he has declined to adjust it.
The agreement effective April 16, 1942, as it has been subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The employes submit and contend that Article 8 of the vacation agreement of December 17, 1941, is controlling, which for ready reference reads:
The claim was submitted to the committee established by Section 10 of the vacation agreement of May 17, 1944, to interpret said agreement, which rendered the following decision:
It will be noted that Section 8 of the vacation agreement of May 17, 1944 is identical to Article 8 of the vacation agreement of December 17, 1941 (here involved) and that the committee denied the claim on the basis that the employe's employment relation terminated with the effective date of his annuity and, as a result thereof, he was not in the service of the carrier on the effective date of the vacation agreement.
The carrier asserts that the claim in this docket is entirely lacking in either merit or agreement support; therefore, requests that said claim be denied.
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.
This claim is made in behalf of retired Machinist A. Romero. Claimant was continuously employed by carrier at its Bayshore Shops, Bayshore, California, until he retired on October 17, 1953 under the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act. Before retiring in 1953 claimant had rendered to the carrier not less than one hundred and thirty-three (133) days of compensated service. At the time of his retirement claimant had earned a vacation for 1954 and carrier paid him for ten (10) days in lieu thereof. However, claimant contends, in view of the carrier's construction of Article 8 of the National Vacation Agreement, that he was entitled to fifteen (15) days of pay by reason of the provisions of Article 1, Section 1(c) of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954. He therefore asks that carrier be directed to pay him for an additional five (5) days. 2233-5 x)89