While this proposal has never been accepted, it is obvious that the Brotherhood was seeking to abolish the "maintenance of take-home pay" doctrine. Carrier can readily accept the Brotherhood's desire to eliminate the principle by the negotiative process; however, such a result is not properly achieved by prostituted interpretation of accepted principles embodied in existing agreements or by the allegation of non-existent rights. Moreover, Article III-Holidays of the Brotherhood's Section 6 proposal of May 17, 1966 utilized for the first time in a holiday provision the expression, ". . . guaranteed 8 hours' pay . . .":
Again, this proposal has never been adopted. Such a proposal to regard birthday-holiday compensation as "guaranteed" and the use of such an unambiguous adjective is reflective of the Brotherhood's desire to achieve a right which it does not currently possess.
In view of the analysis and reasoning advanced herein, carrier submits that the claim of the Brotherhood should be dismissed or denied in its entirety.
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.
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Claimant, a Coach Cleaner, .vas regularly employed by Carrier with workweek Saturday through Wednesday, rest days Thursday and Friday. May 6, 1967, his birthday, was also one of his vacation days. He was paid a day's vacation pay. He did not receive birthday holiday pay. Citing Article 11Holidays of the National Agreement of November 21, 1964, as having been violated by Carrier, the Claim is for 8 hours' birthday-holiday pay at pro rata rate. This Division was confronted with the same issue on this property in Awards 5230, 5898, 5899 and 5904 in each of which the Claim was denied. Applying the principle of stare decisis to the issue as resolved on this particular property, we will deny the Claim.
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John H. Dorsey when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 109, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Coach Cleaner Carlton Huffman, hereinafter referred to as claimant, was regularly employed by the Reading Company, hereinafter referred to as carrier, at Reading Terminal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with workweek Saturday through Wednesday, rest days Thursday and Friday.
Claimant's birthday holiday occurred while he was on vacation May 6, 1967, for which he was paid a day's vacation pay. However, carrier failed to allow him birthday holiday compensation for the day.
Claim for the additional eight (8) hours' pay was filed with the proper officers of the carrier, up to and including the highest office so designated to handle such claims; all of whom declined to make satisfactory adjustment.
The agreement effective January 16, 1940 as subsequently amended, particularly by the Agreement of November 21, 1964 is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is respectfully submitted that the carrier erred when it failed and refused to allow claimant eight (8) hours birthday holiday pay for his birthday May 6, 1967, in addition to vacation pay allowed for the day.
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John H. Dorsey when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 109, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Coach Cleaner Carlton Huffman, hereinafter referred to as claimant, was regularly employed by the Reading Company, hereinafter referred to as carrier, at Reading Terminal, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with workweek Saturday through Wednesday, rest days Thursday and Friday.
Claimant's birthday holiday occurred while he was on vacation May 6, 1967, for which he was paid a day's vacation pay. However, carrier failed to allow him birthday holiday compensation for the day.
Claim .for the additional eight (8) hours' pay was filed with the proper officers of the carrier, up to and including the highest orice so designated to handle such claims, all of whom declined to make satisfactory adjustment.
The agreement effective January 16, 1940 as subsequently amended, particularly by the Agreement of November 21, 1964 is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is respectfully submitted that the carrier erred when it failed and refused to allow claimant eight (8) hours birthday holiday pay for his birthday May 6, 1967, in addition to vacation pay allowed for the day.
While this proposal has never been accepted, it is obvious that the Brotherhood was seeking to abolish the "maintenance of take-home pay" doctrine. Carrier can readily accept the Brotherhood's desire to eliminate the principle by the negotiative process; however, such a result is not properly achieved by prostituted interpretation of accepted principles embodied in existing agreements or by the allegation of non-existent rights. Moreover, Article III-Holidays of the Brotherhood's Section 6 proposal of May 17, 1966 utilized for the first time in a holiday provision the expression, ". . . guaranteed 8 hours' pay . . .":
Again, this proposal has never been adopted. Such a proposal to regard birthday-holiday compensation as "guaranteed" and the use of such an unambiguous adjective is reflective of the Brotherhood's desire to achieve a right which it does not currently possess.
In view of the analysis and reasoning advanced herein, carrier submits that the claim of the Brotherhood should be dismissed or denied in its entirety.
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.
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Claimant, a Coach Cleaner, was regularly employed by Carrier with workweek Saturday through Wednesday, rest days Thursday and Friday. May 6, 1967, his birthday, was also one of his vacation days. He was paid a day's vacation pay. He did not receive birthday holiday pay. Citing Article IIHolidays of the National Agreement of November 21, 1964, as having been violated by Carrier, the Claim is for 8 hours' birthday-holiday pay at pro rata rate. This Division was confronted with the same issue on this property in Awards 5230, 5898, 5899 and 5904 in each of which the Claim was denied. Applying the principle of stare decisis to the issue as resolved on this particular property, we will deny the Claim.