The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee J. Harvey Daly when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 92, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Carmen)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: That Carman B. R. Frailey, Pontiac Repair Track, Pontiac, Michigan is entitled to be additionally compensated for eight (8) hours at the straight time rate, due to his not being allowed to return to his regular assignment on Saturday, December 23, 1961, after completing temporary assignment in the place of car inspector K. Black.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman Frailey's assignment. was on the repair track assigned to work Tuesday through Saturday, with. Sunday and Monday as rest days. On December 16 Carman Frailey was instructed by Car Foreman R. E. Sherman to cover the vacation relief assignment of car inspector K. Black, who was taking one week of his scheduled vacation, effective Monday, December 18. Car Inspector K. Black was assigned to work Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. Carman Frailey covered that temporary assignment and sought to return to. his regular assignment on Saturday, December 23, which was denied him..
The instant claim has been progressed to each official in their proper order as provided in Rule 29, to the highest officer of the carrier, as provided: for in Rule 30, without satisfactory settlement.
The agreement effective September 1, 1949, as subsequently amended, i& controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted by the employes, that claimant Frailey should have been permitted to return to his regular assignment on December 23 after the completion of the temporary assignment on December 22. Rule 14, Bulletining and Filling of Vacancies, third paragraph states:
As evidenced by the foregoing data, it is the past practice at Pontiac, Michigan, for vacation relief employes to observe the rest days of the temporary vacancy they are assigned to fill, regardless of whether such rest days fall during or immediately following the days worked on such vacation vacancies.
In summary of the carrier's position in this dispute, it should be pointed out that the employes in their progression of this claim on the property have failed to support their contentions in this case by (1) the rules of the current Working Agreement, (2) by the past practice in effect at Pontiac, Michigan, or (3) by any Award of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
The instant claim should be denied and carrier requests that this Board so award for the following reasons:
The instant dispute has been handled in the usual manner on the property and has been denied by the Vice President and General Manager, the highest office of the carrier designated to handle claims or grievances.
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.
The Claimant, Carman B. R. Frailey, was regularly assigned to work on the Repair Track Tuesday through Saturday at Carrier's facility at Pontiac, Michigan. The Claimant "was also assigned, through bid, as a vacation relief employe".
On December 16, 1961, Car Foreman R. E. Sherman instructed the Claimant to cover the vacation relief assignment of Car Inspector g. Black during the week beginning Monday, December 18, 1961. Car Inspector Black was regularly assigned to the East End Yard Car Inspector's position and worked Monday through Friday.
The Claimant worked Black's position from Monday through Friday, December 18 through the 22, 1961, and on Saturday, December 23, 1961, the Claimant sought to return to his own regular assignment but the Carrier denied him the right to do so.
The Carrier contends that the Claimant's temporary vacation relief assignment did not end until Monday, December 25, 1961, the date on which the regular incumbent was scheduled to return to work.
The Organization, on the other hand, contends that the Claimant "should have been allowed to return to his own assignment the first day after com- 4677-27 127