The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Joseph M. McDonald when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 29, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, operates train yard at Springfield, Illinois twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.
Carman C. A. Rutledge, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, has an assignment on the second shift with work days Monday through Friday. He was on vacation July 4 through July 22, 1960, both dates inclusive. While on vacation his position was filled every day by the vacation relief inspector,, including July 4, 1960. Claimant has regularly filled his position when holidays fall on a work day of same.
Since the advent of the National Agreement dated August 21, 1954, all shop craft employes of this carrier, holding an assignment that is filled on a holiday falling within their work week while they are on vacation have been paid eight hours straight time plus eight hours time and one-half rate of pay. Effective May 30, 1960, the carrier arbitrarily withheld the eight hours at time and one-half rate, and continues to do so.
This dispute has been handled with carrier officials up to and including the highest officer so designated by the company, with the result he has declined to adjust it.
It is obvious from the caption of the rule which is identified as "OvertimeEmergency Service" that holiday service is overtime.
Record is kept of overtime and carrier endeavors to distribute it equally among train yard inspectors as required by Rule 8 which reads in part as follows:
The claim is progressed under the interpretation dated June 10, 1942, of Article 7(a) of the Vacation Agreement, which provides as follows:
As will be shown by the facts in this case and the agreement applicable to overtime work on holidays, such work is casual and unassigned. The claimant is not entitled to holiday pay for July 4, 1960, because service performed on that day by other car inspectors at Ridgely was casual or unassigned overtime. Employes are not entitled to casual or unassigned overtime payments for holiday work while on vacation.
There is nothing in the agreement between the parties in this dispute that supports the employes' claim, and it 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 submits that he was improperly compensated for the holiday of July 4, 1960 while he was on vacation, and seeks additional compensation 4182-5
under Article I, Section 3 of the August 21, 1954 agreement, and Article 7(a) of the Vacation agreement of December 17, 1941 and its interpretation.
It is agreed that claimant's work week was Monday through Friday; that July 4, 1960 was a Monday, and that claimant was paid vacation pay for Monday, July 4, 1960, at eight hours' straight time.
If Monday July 4 was a part of claimant's regular assignment, then he must prevail.
If that day's work was casual and unassigned, then the carrier's position must prevail.
The record before us shows that on June 30, 1960 carrier posted a bulletin at Ridgely reading as follows:
To us, this is the controlling factor here. The contentions of carrier that holiday work is casual and unassigned cannot be accepted as a general statement.
The contention of the Organization that the bulletin of June 30, 1960 was posted to support any claim, such as the instant one, which might thereafter arise cannot be subscribed to in the absence of any showing other than the naked allegation in the Organization's rebuttal statement.
Speculation cannot be the basis of an award of this division. The bulletin of June 30 is controlling of the fact, and only the fact, that July 4 work at the Ridgely Train Yard was unassigned work, and as a result the claim must be denied.
As to the objections raised by the carrier concerning the introduction of new matter by the Organization, our award precludes the necessity of ruling at this time.