MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY
OF TEXAS
EMPLOYES STATEMENT OF FACTS: Hy Woodle hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was regularly employed as a carman helper by the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company-Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, at St. Louis, (Baden) Missouri. Claimant was regularly assigned to 7:00 A.M., to 3:00 P.M., shift, Thursday through Monday, rest days Tuesday and Wednesday.
During the period in which October 9, 1956, fell, Carman Helper L. H. Davis was on his vacation. Carman Helper G. L. Mayberry was the assigned vacation relief employe to fill the position of Helper Davis while he was on vacation. Helper Mayberry failed to show up for work on Tuesday, October 9, 1956, one of claimant's rest days. Claimant was called to work on this day, on the 7:00 A.M., to 3:00 P.M., shift, to fill Mayberry's position, for which service he was compensated at the pro rata rate of pay for eight (8) hours.
This claim has been appealed as provided for in the controlling agreement, effective September 1, 1949, and having discussed it thoroughly with the high-
and each of them, respectfully request the Second Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, deny said claim, and grant said railroad companies, and each of them, such other relief to which they may be entitled.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
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.
The claimant was regularly employed as a carman helper, Thursday through Monday, with rest days Tuesday and Wednesday.
On Tuesday, October 9, 1956, Carman Davis was on his vacation. Carman Helper Mayberry was the assigned vacation relief employe to fill Davis' position while he was on vacation. On Tuesday, October 9, 1956, Mayberry failed to show up. Claimant was called to work to fill Mayberry's position. He was compensated at the pro rata rate of pay for eight hours. He claims overtime because October 9 was a rest day on his regular assignment.
Claimant did not have to accept the work on another man's assignment. He asked for it and the carrier was obligated to give him that work. Having accepted the new assignment, he assumed the work days, hours of service, and rest days of that position. Award No. 1804, Second Division.
However the statement that "He asked for it . . ." is not only in conflict with the first statement but is not true.
Basing the instant findings on Award No. 1804 discloses that the agreement governing in the instant case was ignored. Award No. 1804 involved a different agreement, a different railroad and a different set of facts. Had the instant findings been based on the controlling rules of the governing agreement the claimant would have been compensated as claimed.