The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in ad
dition Referee Dudley E. Whiting when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 95, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Electrical Workers)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That under the provisions of the applicable agreements the Carrier improperly assigned Electrician H. Wood to fill the vacation vacancy of Electrician W. A. Kocek.
2. That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to compensate Electrician H. Wood for eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate for June 5 and 6, 1954, and for eight (8) hours at the straight time rate for June 7 and 8 and all subsequent violations until Electrician Wood is restored to his regular bulletined assignment.
EMPLOYE'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: H. Wood, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is employed by .the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, at Clyde, Illinois. Claimant is an upgraded helper holding a regular assignment on the 12:00 MN to 8:00 A. M. shift Monday through Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday.
Submitted herewith, identified as Exhibit A, is a copy of Bulletin No. 552, bulletining the assignment held by the claimant. Also submitted herewith, identified as Exhibit B, is a copy of Bulletin No. 552-A assigning the claimant to the above stated regular assignment.
On June 2, 1954, upgraded helper W. A. Kocek, with a regular assignment on the 12:00 MN to 8:00 A. M. shift, Wednesday through Sunday, rest days Monday and Tuesday, began his vacation.
The carrier assigned the claimant to fill the position with the consequence that the claimant's rest days were changed from Saturday and Sunday to Monday and Tuesday.
Claimant was required to render service on Saturday and Sunday, June 5 and 6, 1954, for which he was compensated at the pro rata rate.
The carrier has been unable to discover the agreement referred to by Mr. Elliott in this letter. In conference, the general chairman insisted we were obligated to use the junior man of the craft at the place where the vacation vacancy occurred to relieve the vacationing employe. The only requirement of this nature is contained in Article 12(b) of the vacation agreement, quoted supra, which states, "When the position of a vacationing employe is to be filled and regular relief employe is not utilized, effort will be made to observe the principle of seniority." There is nothing mandatory in this rule to require that the junior man of the craft, even though he be taken from another shift, be used to fill vacation vacancies. It is not the practice in the Clyde Diesel Shop to go outside the shift involved to fill vacation vacancies. Utilizing men of the same shift for this purpose enables them to follow the same work and rest habits, and does not disturb their customary sleeping hours.
It cannot be denied that an effort was made to utilize the principles of seniority in conformance with Article 12 (b) of the vacation agreement. It was necessary that one of the two men on the third shift with Saturday and Sunday rest days fill this vacation vacancy-otherwise there would be only one electrician present on Saturday and Sunday. One electrician is not sufficient to handle the third shift work at Clyde Diesel Shop on those days. The way it worked out, Electricians Biskie and Wood were present on Wednesday and Thursday, June 2 and 3, Biskie, Wood and Dziak were present on Friday, June 4, Wood and Dziak were present on Saturday and Sunday June 5 and 6, and Biskie and Dziak were present on Monday and Tuesday, June 7 and 8. In selecting the man with Saturday and Sunday rest days, the carrier took the junior of the two who were assigned those days, Claimant H. F. Wood. The principle of seniority was followed, in accordance with Article 12(b) of the Vacation Agreement.
In summation the carrier feels that this claim should be denied for the following reasons:
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.
In view of our Award No. 1804 the only real issue in this case is that raised by the organization's contention that "the claimant was not the junior employe of his craft and the carrier in directing the claimant to fill the position of Mr. Kocek improperly applied Rule 16 and the practice thereunder, 2505-8 540