Award No. 6114 Docket No. 5952 2-MP-CM-'71
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Jesse Simons when award was rendered.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman C. L. Womble, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is employed by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, at Little Rock, Arkansas. Claimant is assigned by bulletin to Job No. 1, work week Saturday through Wednesday, rest days Thursday and Friday, assigned hours 7:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M.
The claimant's birthday occurred on September 17, 1968, and he was instructed by bulletin that his job would not work on this date account it being his birthday holiday. However, the carrier found it necessary to fill this position on this date (September 17, 1968) and moved Carman T. S. Daniels, who is assigned by bulletin to Job No. 39, work week Monday through Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday, hours 7:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M., from his regularly assigned job to fill the claimant's job on this date. When the carrier failed to comply with the rule and past practice, i.e., filling the job the same as other holidays and working the incumbent, the agreement was violated.
This matter has been handled up to and including the highest designated officer of the carrier who has declined to adjust it.
The Agreement of June 1, 1950, as amended, and the Agreement of November 21, 1964, are controlling.
was necessary in the instant case before your Board. In Award 5321 the carman in question was given his birthday holiday off with pay. The carrier has done likewise in the instant case.
As stated by your Board in the concluding paragraph of Award 5321, holiday work for the carman who had the birthday holiday would have been overtime work for him, since it was his birthday, but it was not holiday overtime work for any of the other carmen assigned to work that day. Since overtime or holiday overtime work was not necessary on date of claim in this dispute, Rule 5 in the Agreement on this property including the Note thereto is "highly irrelevant" for the same reasons that reference to the train yard holiday board was highly irrelevant in the case before your Board in Award 5321.
In the instant claim the Note to Rule 5 would come into play only if the force assigned to work was inadequate and the employe who had the birthday was also needed. On the date of claim, the men assigned at the North Little Rock train yard included approximately 50 carmen .on running repairs and on servicing freight cars, 68 car inspectors, and 20 carmen on heavy repairs. All assigned on date of claim worked their regular shift except claimant. The force was adequate to perform the work. The carrier had no need to resort to the procedures set forth in the Note to Rule 5 and did not do so. The regular force was not augmented or increased. The regular force simply worked one man short that day deferring, if necessary, any of the repairs which would not delay the operation of the trains.
The claimant in this dispute enjoyed his birthday off with pay. The carrier was not obligated to call claimant under the provisions of the Note to Rule 5. The carrier fully complied with the birthday holiday rule by giving claimant the additional day off with pay.
For the reasons fully set forth herein, the claim in this docket is not supported by the rules cited and should be declined.
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.
The same identical issue was included in Award 6113 and this claim is sustained for the same reasons.