4. With the voluntary resignations on August 10, 1962, of the remaining Hose Cutters, appearing on Attachment "A" of the agreement becoming effective December 16, 1951, the agreement with that craft expired by its explicit terms. Consequently, subsequent to that date hose cutters have not been employed by the railway. However, on September 2, 1962, the claimant called at the office of terminal superintendent F. A. Smith to pick up a vacation allowance check paid under the provisions of Article 8 of the National Vacation Agreement as amended by Article IV, Section 2 of the August 19, 1960 Chicago Agreement, which reads:

"The vacation provided for in this Agreement shall be considered to have been earned when the employe has qualified under Article 1 hereof. If an employe's employment status is terminated for any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to retirement, resignation, discharge, non-compliance with a union-shop agreement, or failure to return after furlough he shall at the time of such termination be granted full vacation pay earned up to the time he leaves the service including pay for vacation earned in the preceding year or years and not yet granted, and the vacation for the succeeding year if the employe has qualified therefor under Article 1. If an employe thus entitled to vacation or vacation pay shall die the vacation pay earned and not received shall be paid to such beneficiary as may have been designated, or in the absence of such designation, the surviving spouse or children or his estate, in that order of preference."

Assistant Vice President and Director of Personnel R. W. Wyckoff happened to be in Mr. Smith's office at the time the claimant called for his check and overheard Mr. Jackson remark to Chief Clerk R. J. Howard that he had been experiencing difficulties in obtaining employment in the Miami area. As a consequence, Mr. Wyckoff, being aware that a subsidiary company (the Florida East Coast Highway Dispatch Company) was employing drivers and helpers, offered Mr. Jackson this employment opportunity. Mr. Jackson flatly refused to even discuss the matter, sarcastically stating that he did not want to have anything further to do with the Florida East Coast Railway or any organization connected with it. In local handling the employes accused the railway of underhanded tactics and attempted coercion in offering the claimant employment with the subsidiary company. To refute the unfounded allegation Mr. Wyckoff furnished General Chairman Cooke a copy of a statement which he had prepared on the date of the occurrence solely because of the arrogant attitude displayed by the claimant.

For the reasons stated herein, the 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.

Parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The jurisdiction of the Second Division to consider this dispute has been challenged on the grounds that the provisions of Section 3, First (h) of The Railway Labor Act-as cited in pertinent part below-do not confer jurisdiction on this Division:

"Second division: To have jurisdiction over disputes involving machinists, boilermakers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers, electrical workers, carmen, the helpers and apprentices of all the foregoing, coach cleaners, power-house employes, and railroad-shop laborers."

Prior to considering the jurisdictional question, it is advisable to set forth the essential background data of this dispute, so that the case may be presented and analyzed in its entirety.

The Claimant, Junious Jackson, Jr., a Carrier employe since December 13, 1947, was regularly assigned as a hose cutter and worked with the 7:40 A. M. Yard Engine Crew Thursday through Monday at the Carrier's Miami-Buena Vista-Hialeah Terminal.

At the end of his tour of duty on February 22, 1962, the Claimant requested and received permission from the Chief Caller to lay off from his assignment for a period of ten days.

The Claimant was held by the Miami Police Department on a contempt of court charge from February 22, 1962 until March 8, 1962. Following his release from police custody, the Claimant reportedly found, at his home, two letters from the Carrier. One letter dated March 2, 1962, denied the Claimant a 60-day leave of absence request and advised him "to report for service on or before March 5, 1962, to protect your seniority with the Railway". The Claimant in a letter dated March 15, 1962, stated that "Someone requested a sixty day leave of absent (sic) for me for I was in no position to do so myself".

The other letter dated March 6, 1962, informed the Claimant, in part, that "For your absence from duty without proper authority, you have forfeited your seniority with the Florida East Coast Railway Company, and severed your employment relationship".

The Organization's principal contentions are that:

1. The 10-day leave of absence the Carrier granted the Claimant did not include his rest days; therefore, the Claimant's leave of absence did not expire until March 9, 1962;

2. The Claimant was ready and willing to return to work on March 9, 1962, but was not permitted by the Carrier to do so;

3. "the Claimant's absence from work was the result of circumstances beyond his control;

4. "the proper way to handle this situation * * * was for the Carrier to hold an investigation to determine the facts surrounding a clear and concise charge";

5. The Carrier is fully aware of the practice of holding investigations before removing employes from service;

6. The Carrier was arbitrary and capricious in its action against the Claimant.

It is particularly significant to note that the Organization never once, either on the property or in its Ex Parte Submission, charged the Carrier with violating any existing agreement rule.

The Carrier's principal contentions-aside from the jurisdictional claim - are that:

1. The Claimant's 10-day leave of absence was up on March 5, 1962, and he should have reported to work on that date;

2. Leaves of absence have always been granted on a calendar day basis and this practice is of long duration, well known to and consistently followed by both the Organization and the Carrier;

3. The Claimant was not disciplined, therefore, there was no basis for an investigation;

4. In "agreements with all crafts * * * absence without proper leave results in automatic * * * termination of employment relationship * * * ";

5. The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen Agreement is controlling and not the Agreement between the Carrier and System Federation No. 69 of the Railway Employes' Department.

Equally necessary to the developmental background of this dispute is a brief review of the Organization's and the hose cutters' relationships with the Carrier.

In July 1929, the Trainmen were relieved from coupling and uncoupling hoses at the Carrier's Miami Terminal; and laborers were hired, given the job title of hose cutters, and assigned the work of coupling and uncoupling cars. The hose cutters were a special group of employes who worked with yard crews but were not covered by or included in any existing Labor Agreement.

On August 27, 1934, System Federation No. 69 was certified by the National Mediation Board to represent hose cutters. The first Labor Agreement between System Federation No. 69 and the Carrier became effective November 19, 1935. That Agreement covered machinists, boilermakers, blacksmiths, sheet-metal workers, electricians, carmen, and the apprentices of those crafts. It is significant to note that) hose cutters were not covered by that Agreement.

In 1941, the United Transport Service Employes of America sought to represent the Carrier's hose cutters. On January 30, 1942, the National Mediation Board reaffirmed System Federation No. 69 as the hose cutters' duly designated representative.

On February 1 and 15, 1943, an interchange of letters between General Chairman R. G. Smith and General Superintendent C. L. Beals occurred. The contents of this correspondence pertained to rates of pay, hours of work, overtime, grievance representation and method of handling grievances.

On December 7, 1951, certain portions of the agreement contained in the letters mentioned above were amended by the Messrs. Smith and Beals.

The letter agreements of February 1 and 15, 1943, and December 7, 1951, constitute the sole and only Labor Agreements covering the hose cutters.

In support of its position the Organization cited Second Division Award No. 1406. A trenchant analysis of the entire record in that case, significantly

reveals the fact that the question of jurisdiction was never raised and, therefore, that dispute is not germane to the present case.

The job classification of the Claimant is that of hose cutter. Section 3, First (h) of the Railway Labor Act does not cover that job classification nor does it cover any job classification within the Trainmen's craft. Consequently, it cannot be successfully argued that hose cutters come within the scope of this Division's authority.

Therefore, this Division lacks jurisdiction and, without prejudice to the merits of the dispute, must dismiss the claim.

AWARD