NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee A. Langley Coffey when award was rendered.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant is regularly employed by the Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines), hereinafter referred to as carrier, as machinist at carrier's Bayshore Diesel Shop, with a workweek of Monday thru Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday.
Claimant was on his scheduled vacation on Thursday, October 20, 1966; a vacation day of his vacation period, for which he was paid a day's vacation pay. However, carrier failed to allow him birthday holiday compensation for the day, Thursday, October 20, 1966.
Claim was filed with the proper officer of the carrier under date of November 17, 1966, contending that claimant was entitled to receive eight (8) hours' birthday holiday pay for his birthday, October 20, 1966, in addition to vacation pay received for that day. Claim was subsequently handled up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such claims, all of whom declined to make satisfactory adjustment.
The agreement effective April 16, 1942 as subsequently amended, particularly by the February 4, 1965 Agreement, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is respectfully submitted that the carrier erred when its failed and refused to allow claimant eight (8) hours birthday holiday compensation for his birthday, October 20, 1966, in addition to vacation pay allowed for the day.
Article II of the February 4, 1965 Agreement, reads in pertinent part as follows:
amended, of their desire to supplement existing agreements in accordance with the proposals accompanying said letter. One of the proposals, concerning the identical factors involved in this docket, reads in pertinent part as follows
The proposal quoted above sought to secure the samd additional pay for claimant that petition seeks in the instant claim, proving beyond any doubt that existing agreement rules do not provide for said payment and that petitioner is fully aware of the fact. Any other determination placed petition in the pointless position of seeking something already possessed.
CONCLUSION: Carrier asserts the instant claim is entirely lacking in agreement or other support and requests that it be denied.
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.
Carrier erred when it failed or refused to allow Claimant eight (8) hours' birthday-holiday compensation in addition to vacation pay.
These awards are completely erroneous and have no precedent value whatsoever.
The overwhelming number of prior awards (92) issued by eight different referees - all in favor of the carriers' position - would indicate a callous disregard for stare decisis, especially so when the neutral makes no effort to show where the prior awards were palpably erroneous.
A weak attempt is made to sustain the neutral's position when he indicates that the parties used "needless language" in the agreement and he suggested what language should have been used.
It is abundantly clear that this neutral went outside of the current agreement governing the parties involved to sustain claims which had absolutely no merit, as the decision to sustain the instant claims is based on conjecture, misinterpretation or misapplication of the contract language.