The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addi
tion Referee Dudley E. Whiting when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 45, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-(Carmen)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the current agreement Carman W. R. Bradberry was improperly compensated at straight time rate for service performed on March 17, 1953. 2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate the aforesaid Carman additionally in the amount of four (4) hours' pay at the straight time rate for the above date.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman W. R. Bradberry is employed at the shop repair track at Tyler, Texas and on March 17, 1953 was regularly assigned to work 7:00 A. M.-4:00 P. M., with Saturday and Sunday rest days. On March 17, 1953, he was instructed to work on the 3:00 P. M.11:00 P. M. shift in the train yard to fill the position of Car Inspector E. M. Mitchum, whose rest days were Sunday and Monday. He worked on his regular assignment until 3 :00 P. M., and then went to the train yard and worked Mr. Mitchum's assignment until 11:00 P. M. Claimant worked this assignment in the train yard through March 28 for the period Mr. Mitchum was on his annual vacation and then went back to his own assignment Monday morning, March 30, 1953.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that claimant is entitled to be paid the time and one-half rate on the date he was changed from one shift to another as provided by Rule 9-1, effective October 1, 1937, reading as follows:
It is further submitted that Rule 102 of agreement effective October 1, 1937, provides:
that there was no actual change of shifts on May 19. Claim was sustained, with findings reading:
even though decision was that it did not have the same right to move him to another shift for other relief without penalty.
It is clear the claim is not supported by the rules, and carrier respectfully submits that the claim 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.
Disposition of this claim is governed by our recent Award No. 2440. In addition to the contentions made in that case, the employes here contend that the claimant was not a regularly assigned relief employe and that Referee Morse' decision is not applicable to him.
That contention cannot be sustained because in the interpretations made by the committee, established pursuant to Article 14 of the Vacation Agreement, on July 20, 1942, it is agreed that the term "relief workers" used in Article 12(5) describes in general terms all employes who fill the positions of vacationing employes. Moreover Question (b) under Article 12(5), which resulted in the controlling decision by Referee Morse, referred to an employe transferred from the second shift to the third shift to fill a vacationing employe's position. Factually the proposition there presented is identical to this case except for the shift numbers.
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.