The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Ives when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 100, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Electrical Workers)
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.
Petitioner contends that Carrier violated Article 4 of the National Vacation Agzeement dated December 17, 1941, and interpretations thereof, by unilaterally establishing a group vacation period between July 2, 1965 and August 2, 1965 at the Susquehanna Coach Shop, Susquehanna, Pennsylvania. Claimants are regularly assigned electricians, each of whom seeks eight (8) hours compensation at the pro rata rate for the July 4, 1965 holiday, which was actually observed on Monday, July 5, 1965.
Petitioner avers that Carrier ignored proper objections to the period s ~' er·; d for ~rrou-
~ vaeations and refused to cooperate with representatives of the employes in an effort to choose a mutually agreeable period which did not include a holiday. It is the position of the Petitioner that Carrier violated Article 4 of the Vacation Agreement of 1941 and pertinent interpretations rendered under date of November 12, 1942.
Carrier contends that Article 4(a) and (b) fully support the selection of the disputed period for group vacations as the work at the Susquehanna Coach Shop is similar to work on a production line in the automobile industry. Consequently, it is consistent with the requirements of service that all vacations be taken at the same time by members of the various crafts employed at this location, which has been the custom for over twenty (20) years. Carrier urges that Petitioner has failed to establish a valid basis for scheduling electricians' vacations separately from those of other employes at the Susquehanna Coach Shop, and that Carrier's action cannot be construed as arbitrary in light of the requirements of service and established past practice.
The pertinent provisions of the December 17, 1941 Vacation Agreement are contained in Article 4 and provide as follows:
The record establishes that Carrier posted notices of the group vacation period in dispute within the prescribed time limits contained in Article 4(b), and the pivotal question for determination is whether Carrier's selection of the disputed vacation period was arbitrary and an attempt to gain collateral advantages from the vacation Agreement because said period encompassed a holiday.
On or about March 24, 1965, Carrier advised the general chairman of System Federation No. 100 of its intention to schedule group vacations at several shops, including the Susquehanna Coach Shop during the disputed period. An objection was raised by the System Federation because the July 4th holiday occurred during the proposed vacation period, and this issue, among others, was discussed at a meeting between representatives of the Federation and Carrier on June 23, 1965.
It appears that the issue was thoroughly considered at this meeting and the request not to include the holiday during the vacation period was denied by Carrier.
As to Petitioner's averment that Carrier arbitrarily established the disputed vacation period without prior consultation with the local committee, the record indicates that the practice of scheduling vacations to begin the first week in July originated at the request of Petitioner. Furthermore, the only suggested reason for change offered by Petitioner was to avoid inclusion of a holiday, a subject already considered during a conference between Carrier and System Federation No. 100. Thus, we conclude that Carrier's action was neither arbitrary nor for the purpose of gaining collateral advantage out of the Agreement.
Under the circumstances involved in this case, we must conclude that the Carrier did not violate Article 4 of the National Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941, when group vacations were scheduled during the disputed period in accordance with established practice. Although the Carrier may not arbitrarily arrange the group schedule so as to include a holiday, neither Article 4 nor pertinent interpretations thereof, requires the Carrier to rearrange an established schedule to exclude a holiday.
Prior Awards of this Division have held that employes are not entitled to separate payments when a specified holiday occurs during a vacation period on a day which otherwise would be a work day. (Award 5230 and others.)