The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Dudley E. Whiting when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 152, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Machinists)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: E. J. Bickar, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is employed by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, as a machinist, with a seniority date of August 15, 1942, at the Crestline, Ohio enginehouse. On May 6, 1955, a joint submission was formulated by Superintendent G. R. Weaver of the carrier's Fort Wayne Division and the organization's Local Chairman D. J. Sharp, involving the claim of the claimant. Copy of the joint submission referred to herein is submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit No. 1. Embodied in this joint submission is a "Joint Statement of Agreed-Upon-Facts" and we quote them in their entirety as follows:
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.
Claimant had standing instructions that his position would not work on holidays and accordingly he did not report for work nor work on February 22, 1954. It is contended that thereby his hours that week were reduced below forty (40) in violation of Rule 3-D-1.
That rule is not a guarantee rule but simply governs temporary reductions of forces, hours or both with a limitation upon the reduction of hours. No such reduction is involved in this case. This case simply involves holiday work which is governed by Rule 4-A-2. That rule clearly shows that it was not intended that all employes would work on holidays because it contains provisions for negotiation of local agreements for the distribution of work on those days.
No such local agreement had been negotiated at the point here involved so the carrier was justified in using the regular incumbents of positions worked on February 22. The fact that the claimant had greater seniority than two (2) employes who so worked is immaterial.
The majority's findings that the claimant was not worked on his regular assignment on February 22, 1954, Washington's Birthday, is an admission that the claimant possessed the right to work on that day.
The majority further finds that the assignment in question was, in effect, blanked. The assignment was not blanked; the claimant was denies) the right to work the assignment in question and the agreement does not authorize the carrier to deny employe the right to work his regular assignment.
The majority's findings that there is nothing in the agreement which required the carrier to work regularly assigned employes on holidays ignores the right of the claimant to work a day coming within his regularly weekly assignment of 40 hours-established in accordance with the rules of the controlling agreement, since there was no local agreement.
The claimant was not worked 40 hours in the week involved in this dispute pursuant to his assignment made in under the controlling agreement, 2509-16 590