The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James P. Carey, Jr., when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 99, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O.
(Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman J. M. Magee, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is employed as such at Jackson, Mississippi by the Illinois Central Railroad, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, and regularly assigned to a position of car inspector in the train yard which works Tuesday and Wednesday 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.; Thursday, Friday and Saturday 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. with Sunday and Monday as rest days The claimant works each and every holiday falling on a work day of his work week except when laying off at his own request or when off on vacation and the same holds true for all other car inspectors at Jackson, Mississippi except those holding position wherein it was stated in the bulletin advertising the position that it would not work on holidays, such as Bulletin No. 18 and No. 19 dated June 28, 1955, copies of which are submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit A.
The position of car inspector held by the claimant is that which was advertised in Bulletin No. 32, copy of which is submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit B, and does not specify that it will not work on holidays as does Bulletins No. 18 and 19.
While the claimant was on his earned vacation from December 11 to December 29, inclusive, which included a holiday, Christmas Day, December 25, 1956, the claimant's regular assignment was filled by a vacation relief employe who worked each and every day: of the claimant's regular assignment, including Tuesday, December 25, 1956.
It is the carrier's position that Claimant J. M. Magee received the proper compensation during the period of his assigned vacation. His work week was Tuesday through Saturday and the holiday falling on Tuesday, December 25, 1956, was, for vacation purposes, a work day and a vacation day for which he was paid the regular eight hours of his assignment.
There is nothing in the agreement between the parties to this dispute that supports the employes' request, and this claim should 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.
Claimant was regularly assigned as a car inspector at Jackson, Mississippi, Tuesday through Saturday. He was on vacation December 11 through December 29, 1956. Christmas Day fell on Tuesday and claimant's relief man was required to work on that day for which he was paid 20 hours' pay for 8 hours of work. The claimant received 8 hours' pay for that day and seeks an additional 12 hours' pay on the theory that claimant works each and every holiday falling on a work day of his work: week. The employes maintain that as the Bulletin advertising the assignment in question did not exclude holiday work, it is implied that holidays are necessarily a part of the assignment. The carrier shows that the claimant's job was not blanked on February 22 or May 30, 1956.
On two prior occasions involving these, same parties this Board has held that under the effective agreement the empoye does not occupy a position involving a five-day week guarantee, including a week in which a holiday falls on what would have been a work day of his work week. See Awards 1606 and 2520. In Award 1606 this Board rejected the claimant's contention that a bulletining of a position which made no mention that holidays would or would not be worked had the effect of guaranteeing five days of work per week. The award stated:
Article 7(a) of the National Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941 and its agreed interpretation of June 10, 1942, provide:
As noted, work on a holiday may or may not be required at the discretion of the carrier. Accordingly, holiday work in the circumstances of this claim is casual or unassigned work and is not a part of the daily compensation paid by the carrier for the claimant's assignment within the meaning of Article 7(a) quoted above. See Awards Nos. 2212 and 2302. We conclude that the claim lacks merit.
Awards 1606 and 2520, cited by the majority in the findings, do involve the instant parties and agreement but they are not relevant here as the issues therein are not the same as in the present instance. Nor is there any need to discuss the dates of February 22 or May 30, 1956 since they have no bearing on the instant dispute inasmuch as the claimant was not on vacation on those days.
Article 7(a) of the National Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941 and its agreed to interpretation of June 10, 1942, does provide:
However the majority's holding that "holiday work in the circumstances of this case is casual or unassigned work" is in error. As stated by the majority "Claimant was regularly assigned as a car inspector at Jackson, Mississippi, Tuesday through Saturday. He was on vacation December 11 through December 29, 1956. Christmas Day fell on Tuesday and claimant's relief man was required to work on that day for which he was paid 20 hours' pay for 8 hours of work." Thus, within the meaning of Article 7(a), the claimant, having a regular assignment, should have been paid the compensation paid by the carrier to the relief man for such assignment while the claimant was on vacation.