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)
GULF, MOBILE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
(NORTHERN REGION)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman Carl Bains, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, retired from service with the Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, July 20, 1960. He had been in continuous service at Bloomington, Illinois since July 15, 1912.
The claimant worked ninety-nine (99) days in the calendar year 1960 prior to retiring. He missed work approximately 41 days in the calendar year 1960 due to his own sickness.
This dispute was handled on the property through all stages and on April 6, 1961 was appealed to the highest designated officer authorized to handle grievances.
Contract counselor replied under date of June 1, 1961 and declined to make correction. The agreement effective July 1, 1946 as subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The Employes' submit that the claimant who has been in the carrier's service since July 15, 1912 and has qualified for a vacation in more than 15 of the preceding years is, under the clear and unambiguous provision of Article 4, Section 1 (c) of the August 19, 1960 agreement, entitled to vacation or pay in lieu thereof. Article 4, Section 1 (c) reads as follows:
severed his employment relationship some forty (40) days prior to September 1, 1960.
At the time claimant resigned and terminated his employment relationship on July 20, 1960, he was given the full benefits of vacation payments under the August 21, 1954 Agreement. At the time of his retirement claimant had not rendered a sufficient number of qualifying days of service in 1960 to qualify for a 1961 vacation payment. Claimant's resignation and retirement severed his employment relationship as of that date. The liberalized vacation provisions of the August 19, 1960 Agreement were not intended to be retroactive and thus grant additional vacation payments to former employes.
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 in 1960, prior to his retirement, had credit for 129 working days toward qualifying for 15 days of a 1961 vacation, or payment in lieu thereof.
On July 20, 1960 claimant resigned and was awarded an annuity under the Railroad Retirement Act effective June 2, 1960.
Up to the date of August 19, 1960, the vacation agreement in effect required that an employe with claimant's status needed 133 compensated days to qualify for a vacation in 1961.
Under Article IV, Section 1 (c) of the vacation agreement of August 19, 1960, it is claimant's position that he had more than 100 days of compensated service (as provided in the new agreement) and therefore he is entitled to payment in lieu of the 15 days' vacation which he claims he has earned.
Carrier points first to the effective date of claimant's severance of employment and the date of the new agreement (August 19, 1960) and contends that Article IV Section 1(c) cannot be applicable to claimant, because he was not an employe on August 19.
Carrier further contends that by Article IV, Section 2 of the August 19, 1960 agreement the parties expressed an effective date which defeats claimant's contention.