-40',
265
Award No. 5128
Docket No. 4838
2-DT&I-CM= 67
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Paul C. Dugan when award was rendered.
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 57, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
DETROIT, TOLEDO AND IRONTON RAILROAD COMPANY
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES:
1. That under the controlling agreement the Carrier improperly
denied Carmen H. Herndon and W. E. Grube compensation for
Christmas Day, December 25, 1963.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Carmen H. Herndon and W. E. Grube in the amount of (8) hours at
the pro rata hourly rate for the aforenamed holiday.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carmen H. Herndon and
W. E. Grube, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, are regularly employed by the Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad Company, hereinafter
referred to as the carrier, at Rouge Yard, Dearborn, Michigan.
Claimants were regularly assigned to a work week of Monday through
Friday, with Saturday and Sundays as rest days, first shift, from 8 A. M. to
4 P. M. at Rouge Yard, Dearborn, Michigan.
On Tuesday, December 24, 1963, claimants reported for work at 8:00
A. M. and worked a full eight (8) hour shift. On Thursday, December 26,
1963, claimants reported at 8:00 A. M. Claimant Grube worked one and
one-half
(11/2)
hours and Claimant Herndon worked one-half
(1/2)
hour.
Accordingly, claimants had compensation paid them by the carrier credited
to the work days immediately preceding and following the holiday, Christmas Day, December 25, 1963, which fell on Wednesday, a work day of the
claimants' work week.
Carrier has refused to compensate the claimants for the holiday, because
they did not work a full eight (8) hour shift on Thursday, December 26, 1963.
cused. In fact it is quite apparent they only reported for work in the first
place anticipating they would qualify for the 8-hour holiday pay for Christmas Day.
It is the carrier's contention that the words "compensation paid him by
the carrier" was intended to mean the full amount of work time required
by the carrier on the qualifying days-not merely some
token amount
. To
carry it to a ridiculous conclusion, a man might work only 5 minutes and
then be considered qualifying for holiday pay.
In article III -holidays -quoted above, "available" is defined to mean
"that an employe is available unless he lays off of his own accord". The
claimants by walking off the job after
working only
a small portion of their
8-hour tour of duty were laying off of their own accord. They were not available for the full work-day required by the carrier. It is therefore apparent
they have disqualified themselves from receiving the holiday pay.
Carrier affirmatively states that all data in connection with this mattter
has been presented to representatives of the organization.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimants (two), regularly assigned Carmen, Claimant Grube worked
1Yz
hours and Claimant Herndon
1/z
hour on December 2&, 1963, the workday
immediately following the December 25, 1963 Christmas holiday. Both
worked the full workday preceding the holiday in question.
The Carrier contends that an employe is required to work the full
8-hour workday, unless excused, in order to qualify for holiday pay under
' Section 3 of Article III of the August 19, 1960 Agreement:
". . . if
com-
pensation paid him by the Carrier is credited to the workdays immediately
preceding and following such holiday . . .".
With this contention that claimants were required to work the full 8-hour
shift on the workday immediately following the holiday in question, we cannot agree. As we pointed out in Award 5126, there is no minimum hours
worked requirement or minimum time worked requirement in said controlling
W, Article to this dispute. Therefore, claimants met the requirement of said
! Section 3 of said Agreement by having compensation paid them by the Car-
rier credited to the workdays immediately preceding and following the
holiday in question.'
Carrier further asserts that when claimants walked off the job, after
x
working
1/z
hour and
11/a
hours, respectfully, they laid off of their own accord
5128 6
and were not available in conformity with Paragraph 2 of Section 2 of said
Article III of the August 18, 1960 Agreement.
Said Paragraph 2, Section 3 of said Agreement, provides as follows:
"All others for whom holiday pay is provided in Section 1 hereof
shall qualify for such holiday pay if on the workday preceding
and the workday following the holiday they satisfy one or the other
of the following conditions:
(i) Compensation for service paid by the Carrier is credited; or
(ii) Such employe is available for service.
NOTE: `Available' as used in subsection (ii) above is interpreted by the parties to mean that an employe is available unless he lays off of his own accord or does not
respond to a call, pursuant to the rules of the applicable
agreement, for service."
It is obvious that the above quoted paragraph applies to "other than
regularly assigned employes," and inasmuch as there is no dispute in the
record that claimants herein were "regularly assigned" employes, this paragraph of the Agreement does not apply, and Carrier's contention is thus
without merit.
Claimants, having met the requirements of the controlling Agreement
in regard to holiday pay, are therefore entitled to said holiday pay.
AWARD
Claims sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of SECOND DIVISION
ATTEST: Charles C. McCarthy
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of March, 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111.
Printed in U.S.A.
5128 7