Award No. 2455
Docket No. 2174
2-IC-CM-'57
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dudley E. Whiting when the award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 99, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Carmen)
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:
(1) That under the current agreement the following carmen
were improperly compensated at the straight time rate for service
performed on the dates as shown opposite their naives:
P. E. Bond -May 3, May 8, May 20, May 25, 1953
June 5, June 10, June 18, June 30, 1953
September 6, September 18, 1953
A. C. Wood --May 3, May 15, May 22, 1953
July 15, July 28, 1953
November 28, 1953
December 3, 1953
February 3, 1954
May 5, May 1 7, 1954
M. D. McKinney-June 18, June 30, 1953
July 5, 1953
L. C. Chambliss -June 22, 1953
July 6, 1953
H. C. Outland -November 4, November 8, 1953
May 18, May 24, 1954
(2) That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate
the aforesaid Carmen additionally in the amount of four (4) hours
pay at the straight time rate for each of the above dates.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carmen P. E. Bond, A. C.
Wood, M. D. McKinney, L. C. Chambliss, and H. C. Outland, hereinafter
referred to as the claimants, regularly assigned to work on the repair track,
Bluford, Illinois, from 7 A. M. to 3 P. M., Monday through Friday, with rest
days of Saturday and Sunday, were instructed by the foreman to relieve train
yard car inspectors who were off on their annual earned vacation on the following dates and shifts; and the claimants returned to their regular assigned
position on repair track as shown below:
[547
2455-14
67
far less likely to have been mistaken as to the meaning of their
contract during the period when they are in harmony and practical
interpretation reflects that meaning than when subsequent differences have impelled them to resort to law and one of them then
seeks an interpretation at variance with their practical interpretation of its provisions . . . ."
It is clear that the mutual construction given by the parties to the whole
agreement, including the Vacation Agreement, over a period of almost twelve
years should have been accepted by the Board as evidence of the proper interpretation of the agreement. The findings of the Board in Awards 1806
and 1807 were fundamentally wrong and should not be followed as a precedent.
There is no basis for the claim in this dispute, and it 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.
The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
Disposition. of this claim is governed by our Award No. 2440 (Docket
No. 1996) .
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of SECOND DIVISION
ATTEST: Harry J. Sassaman
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 3rd day of June, 1957.
DISSENT OF LABOR MEMBERS TO AWARDS NOS. 2440, 2441, 2442,
2443, 2444, 2445, 2446, 2447, 2448, 2449, 2450, 2451,
2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2504.
We are constrained to dissent from the majority findings in the aboveenumerated awards for the reasons set forth in our dissents to Awards Nos.
2083, 2084, 2197, 2205, 2250, and 2243.
It is our considered opinion that Awards Nos. 1514, 1806, and 1807 of
the Second Division should have been followed and the overtime rates embodied in the schedule agreements should have been applied.
R. W. Blake
Charles E. Goodlin
T. E. Losey
Edward W. Wiesner
James B. Zink