The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Carl R. Schedler when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 57, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Sheet Metal Workers)
THE NEW YORK, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILROAD
COMPANY
Employes' Statement of Facts: Donald Giles, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is employed by the New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, as a sheet metal worker at Conneaut, Ohio.
The claimant was regularly assigned to a Monday through Friday work week with Saturday and Sunday as rest days.
The claimant qualified for a ten (10) consecutive work days with pay vacation and was assigned by the carrier, together with a majority of the employes of Conneaut Shop, to take his vacation beginning on July 6, 1954.
The claimant was notified by the carrier that effective at the close of his shift on Friday, July 2, 1954, he was furloughed.
The claimant was not notified by the carrier of any change in his assigned vacation dates. The carrier granted the claimant the vacation pay that he had qualified for and he was allowed ten days' vacation during the first half of July, see submitted copy of letter, identified as Exhibit A, addressed to General Chairman Anderson by Chief Mechanical Officer O . R. Pendy.
The claimant had compensation paid by the carrier credited to the work days immediately preceding and following the Fourth of July holiday. The
of July in no way changed his status as a furloughed employe. Such payments are made to employes on furlough or on leave of absence if their employment relation and right to recall are maintained.
General Chairman L. V. Anderson, in his letter of February 10, 1955 (carrier's Exhibit G) states, "It seems, in my opinion that Mr. Giles was not furloughed July 2nd as stated in the notice but was furloughed July 13th and was entitled to sign for unemployment following his furlough."
It is a fact that an employe is not eligible for unemployment compensation under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act for periods during which he receives compensation from his employer regardless of whether such compensation is for sick leave, vacation payments, or other basis. But this does not change the status of the employe from a furloughed employe to a regularly assigned employe. The furloughing and assignment of employes are provided for and are governed by the current working agreement. The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act does not purport to change the working agreement nor prevent the carrier from furloughing an employe.
The opinion of General Chairman Anderson that Claimant Giles was furloughed on July 13, 1954, instead of on July 2, 1954 is refuted by Rule 24 of the current agreement and the bulletin and notice of June 25, 1954, quoted verbatim in the carrier's statement of facts. The opinion expresed by the general chairman is contrary to the basic and undeniable facts.
On Monday, July 5, 1954, a holiday under the working agreement, claimant was a furloughed employe. As such he held no regular assignment because his job had been abolished as of the close of work on July 2, 1954. Therefore, claimant was not a regularly assigned hourly rated employe on July 5, 1954 and did not qualify for the holiday pay of eight hours at pro rata rate under Article II, Section 1, of the August 21, 1954 agreement.
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.
On June 25, 1954 the claimant and others were advised by a bulletin that their positions would be discontinued at the close of the workday, Friday, July 2, 1954. The claimant was notified on June 25, 1954 of the impending reduction of forces. He was furloughed at the close of the July 2 workday. This advance notice complied with the requirements of the agreement. The claimant was scheduled to begin his annual ten (10) day vacation on July 6, 1954. Since his position was abolished and he was on furlough, he received payment in lieu of vacation.
We find from the record that the claimant was furloughed on July 2, 1954 in accordance with the procedures in the agreement, and that on that date he ceased to be a regularly assigned hourly rated employe. Since the claimant was not a regularly assigned employe on the holiday, he failed to qualify under Article II, Section 1 of the August 21, 1954 Agreement for eight (8) hours' pro rata pay for the holiday which occurred on July 5, 1954. 2486-9 ;395