Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 6893
r° SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
6822
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Irwin M. Lieberman when award was rendered.
( International Association of Machinists
( Southern Pacific Transportation Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the current Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed
to compensate Machinist Helper Hubert Jackson, Jr.
,1-1
hour pay on
October 19, 1973 and for holiday pay for Veterans Day on October
2. That, accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to compensate Machinist
Helper Hubert Jackson, Jr. in the amount of eight and one quarter
hours, at straight time rate of pay,
4
hour for October 19, 1973
and eight hours for Veterans Day, October 22, 1973.
' -- 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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
.This is a claim for fifteen minutes pay for-October
19.,
1973 and a.
claim -for. ho~day :p,Y. for. VetPxan'..s,:;Day., .Qctobe.r. ;22, ..1973... ..Claim..ant,_ _,a ..
· ' -V'
.r . .. .. ... .... . t
.. . . ... .... a
.. ,
. . . Machini
st . Helper,
had'dssigned hours 6f . 7:00
A..
M.. to 3:30 , P, M. , Monday' ~.
to Friday. On Friday, October 19, 1973 Claimant punched in at
6:14
A. M.
At 7:10 A.M. he told his supervisor to clock him out, he was ill and was
going home. Claimant worked the full day of October 23, 1973.
Article II, Section 3 of the August 21, 1954 Holiday Agreement provides,
in pertinent part:
"An employe shall qualify for the holiday pay provided in
Section 1 hereof if compensation paid by the Carrier is
credited to the workdays immediately preceding and following
such holiday '" .
E
,, Form 1 Award No. 6893
Page 2 Docket No.
6822
2-SP(PL)-MA-'75
Petitioner argues that Claimant did perform service on October 19th
and that he had complied with all applicable rules. It is contended
that Carrier had no right arbitrarily to withhold pay for that day - and
for the holiday as well. It is urged that Claimant should not be
penalized except via the disciplinary procedures outlined in the Agreement.
The Organization, asserting that the rule above does not require any
minimum amount of time to be worked in order to qualify for holiday pay,
cites Awards
2517, 5126,
;5127,
5128
among others, in support.
Carrier states that it would agree that if Claimant had worked for
fifteen minutes on October 19th, he qualified for holiday pay; however,
Carrier insists that he performed no service whatever on that day, and
hence was not compensated. Carrier states that Claimant had approached
his foreman prior to 7:00 A.M. on October 19th and asked him how long
he would have to work that day in order to qualify for holiday pay. When
asked why he wanted to quit early, Claimant is alleged to have replied
that he was sick. Carrier also states that Claimant made no attempt to
put on any of his protective work clothing that morning. Carrier argues
that Claimant had no intention of performing arty work on October 19th
and-deliberately and fraudulently contrived to secure holiday pay by
clocking in and waiting until 7:10 A. M. to leave.
We find nothing in the record denying the conversation Claimant had
,( a
with his foreman prior to 7:00 A. M. and nothing, not even a statement by
Claimant, with respect to his having performed work on that morning. It
is clear that if Claimant properly should have been paid for the fifteen
minutes on October 19th, he would have fulfilled the requirements of
Article II Section
3
of the Holiday Agreement, supra, and should have
received holiday pay. The dispute, then, devolves on the factual issue
e
of whether Claimant performed any compensable service on October 19th.
The record indicates that the foreman took the position that Claimant
performed no work at all on that day and was not entitled to pay.
Petitioner has presented nothing but assertions of the Organization's
representatives with respect to the work issue. We cannot find that
merely punching in a time card meets the test of performance of compensable
-_ service The burden of providing all essential elements of-a'claim rests
..-.with
Tetiti
ner.- (Award.:
5534~.-
:and-ln, tMs. ease-.we .must deny.-the Claim .. :-- . ~.;:~,: .
for failure of proof. -
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
ational Railroad Adjustment Board
y .,
Rosemarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of July, 1975.