FoYm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJ'CTSTPU~iVT BOARD Award No.
7838
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
7770
2-8NI-EW-
` 79
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx., Jr. when award eras ,rendered,
( System Federation ITO. 7, Railway tm,ployes'
( Department, A, F, of Z, - C. T. 0.
Parties to Dispute: ( (Electrical
Workers)
( Burlington ilo,rthe.rn Inc.
Dispute: Claim of Errrlo,aes:
1. That in violation of the current agreement, Burlington
"To
rt'nern
Inc., unjustly withheld Crew Lineman David A. Loomis, from
service on
~-ml·.,r 69
19'76.
By so withholding Crew Lneman ;avid
A. Loomis from service ors July
6, 195,
Burlington Northern Inc.,,
forged addW,:Lot1a1 loss of pay for date of July
5, 1,'76,
which was
the actual da.y'of observance for the July
4' 1576
holiday,
2, That accordingly, Burlington T'llorthern Inc., be ordered to
compensate Cz ew Irinetrar, David A. Loa:=its for the five
( 5 ) hours
for which he Yr<~.s av ail e;ble, but not 4~.l1owed to i,.,oxh on July
6,,
1976s
arid in additions that I;ut°lington TToi.`chern inc., be further
ordered to cor::honsate Crew hine:nan David A. Loomis for eight
(u)
hours pay for the forced loss of the Ju1_y
5, 1971
.paid holiday.
Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole retard and
all the evidence, finds that:
The
carrier
ox carriers and the erapl.o;Te or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and eir~ploye within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June
a'l., 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment- hoard has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived ,right of appearance at hearing thereon.
Claimant was a member of a crew working' the vicinity of Ellsbexj:-~r,
Missouri over an extended period of time. The crew was not scheduled for
the weekend of Independence Day,
1976 ( July 4
falling on Sunday and being
celebrated on Mionday,
July
5).
Claimant reported back to ~~rork three hours
after his assigned starting time on jv1y
6
and was not r-,en.,iitted to work 'the
remaining five hours. Since he was not compensated for work on July
6,
he
was not paid holiday pay for the July
5
holiday.
Foam 1 Award
No. 7838
Page 2 Docket No.
7770
2-BNI-Eca-'
79
The Organization argues that claimant should have been permitted to
work fox the five hours of his July
6
shift to which he presented himself,
relying on the provisions of Rule
16,
Absence from Work, which reads as
follows:
"In case an employee is unavoidably kept from work he
will not be disc x~:Lmi.zaated ap-ainst. An employee detained
from work on account of slickness ox fox other good cause
shall notify his Jm:nedi ate soroervisor as early as
possible,"
Claimant alleges that on July 2,
J.y76,
before completing work that day,
he told "the ran in charge at the time" that he would be "2 ox
3
hours
late" on July
E
and.
further
requested that the fore-man be so informed on
July
6.
The ,record shows no contradiction that tUs -'s occurred; no reason
for such tardiness, however, other then presmmably travel fro-,m home, was
mentioned. On the property, the Carrier submitted a statenew;; from the
Supervisors Field Construction that all members o.' the crew had been advised
_prior to July ~-th wee'.-send if they were late xepozwting to work they would
not be permitted 'to work any portion of that day," On the uro.perty, there
was no contention by the clair.:ant or the Organization that the crew members
had not been so advised.
Rule
16
is not of assistance to the claimant _n this instance. There
eras no serious
argument
to substantiate that the clai:.ant was "unavoidably''
absent' nor was there any "good cause" established. As stated. in Award iJo.
775+
( Scearce )
"...(J)ust as the agreement applies a test of reasonableness
and cooperation upon marage:nents it also reTaires that the
employee truly nave good and sufficient reasons for their
request. A
short
unexplained request based upon ' per sonal
business' dogs not meet the test..."
Nor is the test :net simply by an explanation concerning travel time
from home.
With this as factual background for the event in question, the Board
finds,, as in previous awards, that the Carrier is not required by any rule
to permit an employe to
work
a portion of a shift -- at least not in the
absence of advance approval .for tardiness or a, serious question of unavoidable
absences neither of which conditions is applicable here.
It follows that if tree Carrier was within its right to -vithhold wor'-,
from the claimant an July
5,
and thus not pay him co:npensat:ion for the day~
then the
claimant
is not eligible for r-.olida,;y pay for July
5s
under
Appendis D, Section
3,
which reads in part:
Foam 1
Page
3
Claim denied.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
Award No.
7838
Docket No.
7770
2-BNs-Ew-'
79
"A regularly assigned employee shall qualify
for
the holiday
pay provided in Section 1 hereof if compensation paid him
by the carrier is credited in the workdays immediately
pxecedina and following such holiday..."
A W A R D
MkTIOPlAh RAILROAD ADJUSTP~I;1' BOARD
By Order of Second Division
::'c4.a^,d1'lE'.
~f3?:'e:,.SC:il
^ t
r1Cm11'S:1.StY'at1'v'E'.
ASS:1
Sta nt
s.A'
Dated at ~hicago., Illinois this
7th
d:zy of February,
1978.