Docket No. 2572-I
2-L&N-I-'5.9
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in ad
dition Referee Dudley E. Whiting when award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE
K. E. MAHAN-Machinist
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYE:
1. A 5-day vacation period was worked by a laborer, although my application was on file, and I was available for work.
2. Cut-off bulletin was posted and I was relieved same
date, 5 days before effective date of the bulletin.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Case No. 1.
I filed application on Aug. 22, 1955, with Mr. J. O. Rose,
Master Mechanic, Corbin, Ky., for machinist vacation relief work
at the L&N shops at Loyall, Ky., and worked vacation vacancies as
they occured, between Aug. 31 and Nov. 9, 1955.
After being assigned to a vacation vacancy which began on
July 12, 1956, I learned that a 5-day vacation vacancy, June 19
through 23, 1956, had already been worked by a laborer at Loyall
shops, Mr. Russell Williams. Since my application was on file
and I was available, I feel that I was deprived of five days
work in this instance.
Case No. 2.
I worked a vacation vacancy at Loyall, Ky., which began
on July 12, and ended on July 30, 1956, at 11 P. M. The next
vacation vacancy began at 11 P. M. July 30, and I had been
assigned several days previously to work this next vacation vacancy. However, cut-off bulletins were posted July 30, and I
12281
3143--4
23]_
"3. A claim may be filed at any time for an alleged continuing violation of any agreement and all rights of the claimant
or claimants involved thereby shall, under this rule, be fully protected by the filing of one claim or grievance based thereon as long
as such alleged violation, if found to be such, continues. However,
no monetary claim shall be allowed retroactively for more than
60 days prior to the filing thereof. With respect to claims and
grievances involving an employe held out of service in discipline
cases, the original notice of request for reinstatement with hay
for time lost shall be sufficient.
"4. This rule recognizes the right of representatives of the
Organizations, parties hereto, to file and prosecute claims and
grievances for and on behalf of the employes they represent.
"5. This agreement is not intended to deny the right of
the employes to use any other lawful action for the settlement of
claims or grievances provided such action is instituted within nine
months of the date of the decision of the highest designated officer
of the Carrier.
"6. This rule shall not apply to requests for leniency."
Foreman Cowden disallowed this claim on August 28, 1956, and no
appeal was taken, therefore, it is the position of carrier there is no merit to
it under the existing agreement and it must 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.
Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.
It appears that this claim was not handled on the property in accordance with the requirements of the applicable agreement nor in accordance
with the requirements of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, so we have no
authority to sustain it.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of SECOND DIVISION
ATTEST: Harry J. Sassaman
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of March, 1959.