The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Gene T. Ritter when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 17, RAILWAY EMPLOYES' DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Electrical Workers)
THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD
RAILROAD COMPANY
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Electricians L. 0. Smith. and V. J. Clements, hereinafter, referred to as the Claimants, are regularly employed by the New York New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, hereinafter, referred to as the Carrier, at the Dover Street Engine House, Boston, Massachusetts. Claimant L. O. Smith held a regular assignment on the 4:00 P. M. to 12:00 Midnight shift, with rest days Friday and Saturday. Claimant V. J. Clements assignment was 8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., with Thursday and Friday as rest days.
Friday, December 25, 1964, Christmas Day, was the claimants' rest days and the claimants were directed to perform the duties of their regular assignments on that day. A claim was made in the amount of eight (8) hours at time and one-half rate each, in favor of claimants for working on their rest days as provided under Rule 4 of the Agreement. Claim was also made for eight (8) :hours at time and one-half rate for working on their holiday as provided under Rule 3 of the Agreement.
The Carrier paid the claim for work performed by claimants on their rest day and declined the claim for work on their holiday.
The above stated facts are verified by copy of letter dated October 1, 1965 addressed to General Chairman A. J. DeRitis, Jr., by Director of Labor Relations and Personnel J. J. Duffy, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The testimony of the Employe Representatives before the various Emergency Board, as indicated above, and the subsequent agreements between the carriers and organizations clearly indicate that there was no intention to pyramid one penalty upon another simply because an employe may perform service on a rest day which incidentally happened to be a holiday.
There has been no difference of opinion between the parties on this property as to the application of these rules for a period of twelve years. Only one penalty payment has been made over the years for any service performed on a rest day which was also a holiday, and no claims have been made for anything more until now.
While the Employes have not so stated, we believe that they have been prompted to enter such claims because of sustaining Awards in similar circumstances involving another organization and different rules, and probably are acting under the theory that they have nothing to lose.
But a later Award of Third Division, Award No. 14220 (Referee B. E. Perelson), points out the distinction between the rules of the agreement involved in those sustaining awards and rendered a denial award in the case at hand.
We subscribe to that principle and impress upon your honorable Board that the agreement rules with System Federation No. 17 on this Property likewise differ from the rules upon which the decision in Award 10541 was predicated.
For all of the reasons heren stated we respectfully request that the claims be denied.
All of the facts and evidence herein have been affirmatively presented to or are known by the Employes.
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.