Award No. 5263 Docket No. 5161
The Second Division consisted of regular members and in
addition Referee William Coburn when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 2, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Machinists)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Machinist D. W. Shepp, hereinafter referred to as the Claimant, is regularly employed by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier, and regularly assigned in the Diesel Shop at St. Louis, Missouri, with assigned hours of 11:30 P. M. to 7:30 A. M., with workweek Sunday through Thursday, rest days Friday and Saturday. Claimant, in line with the note to Rule 5, was assigned by the Carrier to work the third shift from 11:30 P. M. to 7:30 A. M. on a legal holiday, Washington's Birthday, Monday, February 22, 1965, on which date the Claimant's birthday also occurred. Claimant was compensated for February 22, 1965, as follows:
"* * * If an employe's birthday fails on one of the seven holidays named in Article III of the Agreement of August 19, 1960, he may, by giving reasonable notice to his supervisor, have the following day or the day immediately preceding the first day during which he is not scheduled to work following such holiday considered as his birthday for the purposes of this Section."
Claimant did not avail himself of the opportunity to select an alternate date to celebrate his birthday. If he had done so and had been required to work on both the recognized holiday and his birthday holiday, he would have been paid at the time and one-half rate for work performed on both holidays. The Carrier has found it possible to blank jobs in diesel facilities when a birthday occurs and this perhaps influenced claimant to refrain from selecting an alternate day and to file this claim.
Nowhere in the Shop Craft Agreement on this property or in the National Agreement of February 4, 1965 is it contemplated that an employe will be paid more than once for work performed. The rate for work performed may be the pro rata rate, the overtime rate or the double time rate but the rules do not contemplate or provide that an employe will be paid twice regardless of which rate is applicable. In the absence of a specific rule which requires paying an employe twice for work performed, a claim for such double payment as in this case must be denied.
Not only is there no rule providing for double payment for work performed but we point out that the parties on this property have agreed there shall be no overtime on overtime. See Rule 4 (i). The agreement specifically prohibits pyramiding overtime by utilizing overtime payments as a basis for claiming more overtime. Claimant ,has been properly compensated in accordance with Rule 3 (b) for the work performed on February 22, 1965.
A claim for double payment for work performed has recently been considered by the Third Division under slightly different circumstances in Award 14240 where the Third Division denied a claim for such double payment.
The payment of eight hours at the time and one-half rate properly compensated claimant for the work performed on the date of claim. He is not entitled to the additional compensation claimed. It follows that your Board must deny the Employes' 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 required to work eight hours on Washington's Birthday, which was not only a holiday but also his birthday. He received eight hours pay for the Holiday, as well as a like amount for his birthday and eight hours pay at the time and one-half rate for working on that day.
Petitioner contends that Claimant is entitled to another payment at the time and one-half rate since he performed work on both his birthday and the Holiday. We disagree. The parties plainly anticipated this specific situation in Article II Section 6 (f) of their February 4, 1965, Agreement, which provides that "If -an employe's birthday falls on one of the seven holidays named in Article III of the Agreement of August 19, 1960, he may, by giving reasonable notice to his supervisor, have the following day or the day immediately preceding the first day during which he is not scheduled to work following such holiday considered as his birthday for the purposes of this Section."
Claimant did not exercise his option to celebrate his birthday on a date other than Washington's Birthday and there is no sound basis here for awarding duplicate payments for the same eight hours work.
In line with Award 5218 and the many other awards cited therein that have passed upon precisely the same issue and rules as are now before us, the present claim will be denied.