For~p. 1 - NATIONAL RAII20AD ADJUSE~ZNT BOARS Award No.
6;5'~84
' ' SLIOEM DIVISION
DOCKET .',1o.
6458
2-IC-~:"--'
73
The Second
Division
consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin iii. Lieberman when award was rendered..
( System Federation No.
99,
Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company
Dispute: CJai;r_ of Employes:
1. That under the current agreement, W. H. Grace, Lead Carman, is entitled
to eight
(8)
hours' pay at the overtime rate for July
24,
1971,
his
birthday-holiday, account his job being blanked and others perforr:LLng
his work.
2. That accordingly the Illinois Central Railroad be ordered to compensate
W. H. Grace, Carmen, eight
(3)
hours' pay at the overtime rate for July
24, 1971.
Findings:
The Second
Division of
tU
AdjustUment yodrd, upon tile 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 eraploye within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as
approved June 21,
134.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was assigned as a Lead Man and Record Writer with a work week of Wednesday through Sunday. His birthday fell on Saturday July
24, 1971
and he was rcsquired
to take the day off (with pay). His foreman, who is the train yard supervisor, perforT;=ed
certain duties which had been normally performed by Claimant, on the day in question. `i!:
duties identified specifically were preparing a switch list and Form
1453
(which directs
certain work to be performed on freight cars).
Petitioner claims that it has been the practice in the past for the Lead,.anRecord Writer to work his job on his birthday-holiday. In support of this co..-tention
Petit Toner points to an instance on June
2,
1971
when a lead man worked his birthda.yholiday. Carrier rejoins by the assertion that leadmen are only permitted to work on
their birthday holidays when no foreman was on duty, which was the case on June 2,
1971.
No further evidence was presented to substantiate the past practice.
The Organization further argues that the foreman performed the duties of the
C'~',- ' r^ant' s position on the birthday-holiday and Clair:.ant should have beer. called in to
u~...lorm the wor1~. In support of' this argument Petitioner :as described the two activities of the completion of Form
1453
and the switch list, whic:: activity has riot been
Form 1
rP&ge~ 2
Award No. 652~t4
Docket
Tao. 6,458
2-IC-011-'
73
denied by Carrier. Carrier asserts, however, that his work was not reserved, exclusively
to Claimant but is also performed by the foreman as part of his normal duties. Carrier
argues that the foreman is primarily responsible for supervision of the work force end
some of his responsibility is delegated to the lead man.
The Organization 'does not contest the right of Carrier to blank a position on
a birthday-holiday; rather it rests its position on the two arguments described above.
With respect to both contentions the record is devoid of probative evidence. Petitioner
has simply not sustained its burden of proof with respect to either the past practice of
working a leadman on his birthday or the exclusive reservation of the work to the leadman. For this reason we must deny the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
0__
~' I
-or-,
~/ n
Bo c.~2 , .
h se:rarie Brasch - huminis t.r a rive Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day cf November,
1n7.3.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJITSI'iEiVT BOARD
By Order of Second Division