The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Adolph E. Wenke when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 122, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Carmen)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: That in conformity with the applicable agreements the Carrier be ordered to compensate retired Carman V. Tomestyk for five (5) additional days vacation.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman V. Tomestyk, hereinafter referred to as the claimant (age 69) was employed by The Pullman Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, on March 19, 1920. Claimant has been in the continuous employment of the carrier as a carman since that date until he retired, in accordance with the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act on October 1, 1953.
Prior to retiring on October 1, 1953, the claimant had qualified for a vacation in the year 1954 by rendering compensated service on 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 carrier, with the result that he has declined to adjust it.
The agreement effective June 16, 1951, as it has been subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that Article II of the June 16, 1951 Vacation Agreement-reading:
apply to Tomastyk since Tomastyk severed his employment relationship with The Pullman Company prior to January 1, 1954, and was not "an employe covered by this Agreement."
The organization's claim that Tomastyk is entitled to compensation representing an additional five days' vacation for the year 1954 is without merit and should 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.
Retired Carman V. Tomastyk contends he was improperly paid for the vacation due him for 1954 and, because of that fact, asks that he receive from the company five (5) days of additional compensation.
Claimant was employed by the company on March 19, 1920 and thereafter worked continuously for it until he retired on October 1, 1953 under and in accordance with the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act. Admittedly he worked sufficiently in 1953 to earn a vacation for 1954 and the company paid him in lieu thereof. It paid him for ten (10) days and the question is, was he entitled to fifteen (15) days' pay in lieu thereof.
Article 11 of the parties' Vacation Agreement, dated May 10, 1951, provides as follows:
Claimant had earned a vacation for 1954 and, under the provisions of the foregoing article, was entitled to be paid in lieu thereof.
On November 2, 1954, the company entered into an agreement which provided in Article I, Section 1 (c) that:
In view of the provisions of Article II claimant qualified for and was entitled to a vacation of fifteen (15) consecutive workdays with pay for 1954. See our Award 2231.