Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 7+10
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7321
2-MP-CM-'77
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James C. McBrearty when award was rendered.
( System Federation No. 2, Railway Employes'
( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
' ( Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company violated Article II,
Section 3, of the Agreement of September 21,
195+,
when they
denied Cayman R. V. Jarrett, Kansas City, Missouri, compensation
for Labor Day Holiday, September 1, and compensation fox the day
following the Holiday, September 2,
1975.
2. That accordingly, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company be
ordered to compensate Cayman Jarrett in the amount of eight
hours
(8')
at pro rata rate for Labor Day, September 1st, and
one hour thirty minutes (1'30") at pro rata rate fox September
2,
1975,
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier ox 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, 193+.
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 formerly employed as a Cayman at Carrier's Kansas City,
Missouri facility, with assigned hovers of x+:00 PM to 12:30 AM. On Sunday,
August 31,
1975,
Claimant worked three and one-half hours before he went
home, stating that he was not feeling well. He stated that he though he
had been stung by something.
Monday, September 1,
1975,
was the Labor Day Holiday, and Claimant was
not assigned to work on the holiday.
On Tuesday, September 2,
1975,
Claimant showed up five (5) minutes
before the start of his shift at x+:00 PM.
Form 1 Award No. 7110
Page
2
Docket No.
7321
2-MP-CM-177
'~rr~
Claimant attended the reading of the "safety rule of the day", and then
was asked to wait while the foreman handed out the work assignments to the
other men.
Claimant was then sent to the General Car
Foreman's
office, where
Claimant was provided with a Personal Injury Foam, and instructed to fill
it out. Claimant refused to fill out the form, and the General Foreman
thereupon called in the Superintendent. Carrier's Superintendent instructed
Claimant with respect to his duty to fill out the personal injury form, and
how the form should be completed. Since Claimant still refused to comply
with Carrier's instructions relating to reporting personal work injuries,
Claimant was advised he was being held out of service pending investigation,
and left the property at
5:30 PM.
Carrier refused to pay Claimant eight hours' holiday pay for Monday,
September 1,
1975,
and one and one-half hours pay for Tuesday, September 2,
1975.
Carrier denied claim fox one and one-half hours' pay on September
2,
because Claimant performed "no service or work". Pay was denied fox the
holiday, September 1,
1975,
since no compensation was paid by the Carrier
fox September
2,
the day following the holiday.
Article II, Section
3
of the Agreement reads in pertinent part:
"An employee 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 ...."
Carrier acknowledges that it was not until after Claimant refused to
comply with the instructions issued by both the General Foreman and the
Superintendent, that Claimant was advised that he was being taken out of
service. The record shows that this was one and one-half hours after
starting tine.
The Board finds, therefore, that Claimant performed compensable
"service" up until
5:30
PM. Claimant attended the reading of the "safety
rule of the day", waited for the foreman to issue work orders to the other
employer, and then went to the General Foreman's office. All of this
transpired during Claimant's regularly assigned hours, and under Carrier's
direction. Compensable service was thus performed on September
2, 1975.
(See Second Division Award No.
6502;
also see Third Division Award Nos.
1716+, 10062, 3966,
and
3+62 ) .
Turning now to the question of whether Claimant had to be compensated
for eight (8) hours each on the days immediately preceding and following
the holiday, in order to qualify for holiday pay.
Form 1 Award No.
7+10
Page
3
Docket No.
7321
2-MP-CM-'77
Article II, Section
3
of the Agreement shows that in order for an
employee to qualify fox holiday pay under the provisions of this Section,
he must have compensation paid him by Carrier credited to the workdays
immediately preceding and following such holiday. This Section does not
require an employee to have compensation fox a minim= number of hours
worked on the day preceding ox following a holiday, but merely says that
he must have "compensation paid by the Carrier credited" to the workdays
immediately preceding and following the holiday. (See Second Division
Award Nos.
717+, 6893, 6474, 5126,
and
2517;
also see Third Division Award
No.
19128).
Therefore, since Claimant was entitled to compensation fox one and
one-half hours on September 2,
1975,
and had already been compensated for
three and one-half hours on August
31, 1975,
he qualifies in all respects
for the holiday pay. The claim is sustained in its entirety.
A W A R D
Clams sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By ~" ,-
Ro emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated a Chicago, Illinois, this