Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No.
7268
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7111
2-T&P-CM-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr., when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 121, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( The Texas and Pacific Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Car Inspectors H. R. Girard, W. L. Hester, C. T. Irvin,
L. E. Loyd and L. N1. Story, were improperly compensated under
the terms of the current agreement for October 28,
1974,
while
on vacation.
2. That Car Inspectors W. H. Hopper and A.
M.
Tate, were improperly
compensated under the terms of the current agreement for November
28, 1974,
while on vacation.
3.
That accordingly, the caxmen be made whole by additionally
compensating Carman H. R. Girard, W. L. Hester, C. T. Irvin, L. E.
Loyd and L. M. Story, W. H. Hopper and A. M. Tate, for holiday
during vacation, in the amount of four (4) hours at the pro rata
rate of pay.
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.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimants are Car Inspectors who contend they should have been paid
holiday pay at premium rate ^ather than pro rata for holidays which occurred
while they were on vacation.
Claimants cite Article 'l(a) of the Vacation Agreement of December 17,
1941,
and its subsequent interpretation on June 10,
1943,
which read as
follows
Form 1
Page
2
Award No.
7268
Docket No. 713.1
2-T&P-CM-t77
"An employee having a regular assignment will be paid
while on vacation the: daily compensation paid by the
carrier for each assigrnnent."
"This contemplates that an employee having a regular
assignment will not be any better or worse off, while
on vacation, as to the daily compensation paid by the
carrier than if he had remained at work on such assignment, this not to include casual or unassigned overtime
Many previous awards have found that if holiday overtime is worked by
a vacation replacement, and such work is found to be "casual or unassigned
overtime", then the employee on vacation is entitled to holiday pay pro
rata and not at the premium pay. On the other hand, other awards have
found that where such holiday work is regularly and permanently scheduled -rather than "casual" or "unassigned" -- then the employee on vacation
receives holiday pay at the prenfum rate when his vacation replacement
performs his duties on the holiday.
The present instances therefore depend simply on the fact situation
involved, and nothing more.
Carrier states, "These
jobs
are not bulletined to work holidays, and
Carrier retains the right to assess and fill its manpower requirement on
holidays dependent upon operational needs." The Organization presented no
evidence to the contrary. Although all positions may have been worked on
the particular holidays in question, such work is not a recurring part of
the work schedule of the regular employees. Thus, it comes within the
definition of "casual or unassigned".
Having so found, the Board need not pursue further the Carrier's
argument as to the meaning and intent of Rule 3(d) of the applicable
Agreement, which deals with payment for "services perfoxned" on holidays.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
By
emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of April, 1977.