The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addi
tion Referee D. Emmett Ferguson when the award was rendered.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Mr. J. E. Yother and Mr. R. G. Hogue, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, are employed by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, as car helpers at McGehee, Arkansas.
On January 12, 1955, Car Inspector E. O. Turner, laid off due to illness. The carrier assigned Carman J. D. Cobb to fill the car inspector vacancy. Car Helper L. D. Averett was set up to fill the carman vacancy. Claimant Yother, who was furloughed, was recalled to work on January 12, 1955, and was assigned by the foreman to work as a car helper on the rip track from 7:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M. Monday through Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday.
On February 4, 1955, Claimant Hogue, who was also furloughed, was recalled to service to fill vacation relief assignments. On May 23, 1955, Car Inspector C. W. Bradley began his vacation. The carrier assigned Carman E. W. Burchfield to fill the car inspection vacation relief assignment. Car Helper F. Durey was set up to fill the carman vacancy. Claimant Hogue was assigned, on May 23, 1955, by the foreman to the regular assigned position of car helper on the 7:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M. shift on the rip track, Monday through Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday.
position was a regularly assigned employe within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, of said agreement. This contention was, of course, rejected by the carrier because the language involved reads "regularly assigned
employe" and does not refer to position. It matters not whether the position is a so-called permanent one, or one established as a temporary position -under the language of Article II, Section 1, the employe must be regularly assigned to a position.
This is not a case of first impression for your Board. In Docket No. 1886, involving a dispute between System Federation No. 97 and the Santa Fe Railway, it was contended that the claimants in that case were entitled to compensation for holidays falling on May 30 and July 4, 1954. The same article of the same agreement was urged in support of that claim as in the instant case. Your Board, with the assistance of Referee Douglass, in Award No. 2052, denied the claim and held as follows:
The burden of proof rests upon the employes in this case. See Second Division Award No. 1996 and Third Division Award Nos. 6402, 6650 and 6673, as well as numerous others in all Divisions of the N.R.A.B.
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.
Claimants Y other and Hogue were furloughed car helpers, who had been recalled and used to fill various short term vacancies of men who had been advanced to fill other vacancies of sick or vacationing employes. On Decoration Day 1955 they were in such status, worked, and were not paid any holiday allowance, which they now claim.
It is argued both pro and con that they were "regularly assigned hourly and daily rated employes" within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 of the August 21, 1954 Agreement.
The weight of authoritative precedent supports the carrier's position that claimants were not regularly assigned employes on the holiday. The claimants' personal status, on which their contractual right to holiday pay rests, was that of temporarily assigned not regularly assigned employes. 2492-10 454