The Second Division consisted of regular members and in
addition Referee David Dolnick when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 2 RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0. (Machinists)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, maintains a Machine Shop at Sedalia, Missouri where H. J. Staubli, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, is employed as a Machinist, hours 8:00 A. M. to 4:40 P. M., work week Monday through Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday.
On June 7, 1965, the Claimant started his vacation and his birthday holiday occurred on Tuesday, June 8, 1965; however, although the Claimant qualified under the Agreement, the Carrier declined to pay his birthday holiday pay, which constitutes the basis of the claim.
This matter has been handled up to and including the highest designated officer of the Carrier who has declined it.
The Agreement of June 1, 1960, as amended, and the Agreement of February 4, 1965, are controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: That the Agreement of February 4, 1965, particularly Article II, Section 6 (a), (b), and (c), reading:
their income was reduced in a week in which a holiday fell. By giving the employes a day's pay for a holiday, an employe was made whole for that week and enjoyed .his regular income. When the holiday rule achieved this purpose the negotiating committee quickly realized that an employe absent on vacation was entitled to no more than a day's pay for each day he was absent on vacation. Accordingly, the Vacation Agreement was amended in the light of the Paid Holiday Rule so that the Vacation Agreement would be applied in a manner that the employe would not receive two days' pay when a holiday fell during the vacation period. This is the reason for Section 3 of the Vacation Agreement.
When the parties agreed' to the addition of the birthday holiday, no change was made in Section 3 of the Vacation Agreement referred to above. The birthday holiday when falling during a vacation period must also be considered as a work day of the period for which the employe is entitled to vacation. This means he is entitled to eight hours pro rata for each day while on vacation and nothing more.
The issues raised by this dispute have been given thorough consideration not only by this Carrier but by the Carrier's Committee that negotiated the Agreement of February 4, 1965. In fact, the particular question raised by this dispute was put to the Committee and the question and the Committee's answer thereto is as follows:
Claimants were paid eight hours pro rata for each day while on vacation and are not entitled to any additional compensation.
The Employes ignored the Vacation Agreement in the handling of this claim on the property. The reason is the Vacation Agreement requires a denial of the claim. It follows that your Board must deny the claim.
All matters contained herein have been the subject matter of correspondence and/or conference.
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 was on vacation from June 7 through July 4, 1965. His birthday was on June 8, 1965. An employe's birthday is a paid holiday. Claimant was paid eight (8) hours for each day of his vacation, including June 8. Employes are requesting an additional eight (8) hours holiday pay for June 8, 1965.
The same issue is fully discussed in Award No. 5152. The principles and conclusions adopted in Award 5251 are here affirmed.
The majority's decision to sustain the claim presented in Award No. 5256 is based on the principles and conclusions stated in its findings in Award No. 5251. Accordingly, our dissent to Award No. 5152 is equally applicable to Award No. 5256 and is hereby adopted as such.
LABOR MEMBERS' ANSWER TO CARRIER MEMBERS' DISSENT TO
AWARD NOS. 5251, 5252, 5253, 5254, 5255, 5256, 5257 AND 5258
A dissent which merely expresses the chagrin of the dissenters is of little value. The dissent of the Carrier Members to Award Nos. 5251 through 5258 is such a dissent.
The dissent does nothing but review the arguments presented to the Division which were considered and disposed of in the findings of Award No. 5251.
The findings in Award No. 5251 and the Labor Members' dissents to Award Nos. 5230, 5231, 5232, 5233, 5310 and 5311 point out all of the reasons