The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Francis B. Murphy when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 101, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Electrical Workers)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: At the Interbay Roundhouse on the first shift on Sundays prior to and following September 2, 1957, the carrier employed two electricians and two helpers. On September 2, 1957, the carrier assigned one electrician and one helper to work that holiday on the first shift. The above named electrician and helper, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, were available for service on that date but were not used.
The dispute was handled with carrier officials designated to handle such affairs, who all declined to adjust the matter.
The agreement effective September 1, 1949, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that the facts show that the carrier employed two electricians and two electrician helpers on the first shift, which means that they, under Rule 11 (b) C, captioned and reading as f ollows
In Award No. 2471, Second Division of the NRAB, with Referee Schedler, it was stated in the findings:
Since this instant claim of the carmen of this property involves a dispute identical to those contained in Second Division Awards Nos. 2070, 2097 and 2471 and in which awards the claims of the employes were denied, your Board must also find the instant claim of no merit whatsoever and render a denial decision consistent with the decisions of the afore-mentioned Second Division denial awards.
In effect, the employes herein are attempting through the medium of your Board to amend the guarantee rule of their agreement by having you hold that a purely oral statement is a new guarantee rule in the agreement, contrary to the provisions of the one now contained. That is beyond the power of this tribunal. The present rules make no requirement relative to any number of employes to be worked on holidays; nor do they specify any restrictions on management as to the number of employes who may or may not be worked on such holidays. Such restrictions cannot be added to the schedule by Board dictate.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the Nvhole 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.
It is our opinion that the August 21, 1954 agreement between the organization and the carrier spells out the intention of the parties regarding 3432-8 141
holiday pay. For this reason we must reject the contention of the claimants that a prior oral agreement makes a sound basis for payment of this claim.
The majority in holding that "the August 21, 1954 agreement between the organization and the carrier spells out the intention of the parties regarding holiday pay. For this reason we must reject the contention of the claimants that a prior oral agreement makes a sound defense for payment of this claim" ignores the fact that the oral understanding relates to "working conditions" and therefore falls within the purview of Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act. There being no evidence that the understanding has been changed hi accordance with the requirement of Section 6, the majority should have held that the oral understanding was binding and the carrier had no license to terminate it.