Form 1
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BCARD Award No, 7987
 SECOND DIVISION Docket No, 7853
 2-scL-cM-'79

 The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Bernard Cushman when award was rendered.

 ( Syste.~ Federation No. T+2, Railway Employes'

 ( Department, A. F. of L. - C. I. 0.
 Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)

 Dispute: Claim of Tniployes:
( Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company



Findings:
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board,, upon the whole record and all the evidences 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 Jizne 21s 193.

 This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispa4e involved herein.

The claimant, T,2vs. M. B. Leith, was employed by the company as a coach cleaner on December 6, 1912. When the vacation list for 176 was compiled, by the Carrier, the claimant was erroneously scheduled for five (5) weeks vacation. Subsequent to the time at which the claimant took the vacation as scheduled the Carrier discovered that the Carrier had made an error in their eligibility list, and that the claimant was entitled to four weeks vacation rather than five. In 1975, the claimant had received three weeks vacation and was, in fact, entitled to four weeks vacation in 1976, since she had 20 qualifying years of service, pursuant to the terms of the vacation Agreement of December 17, 1y61., as amended by Agreement of October 7, 1971,

 Paragraph (d) of Article III - Vacaticin reads:
Form l Award No. 7987
 Page 2 Docket No, 7853
 2-SCL-CM-'79
 "(100 days during the preceding calendar year and who has
 twenty (20) or more years of continuous service and who,
 during such period of continuous service renders compensated
 service on not less than one hundred (l00 days (133 days
 in the years 150-1959 inclusive, 151 days in 1949 and 160
 days in each of such years prior to 19+9) in each of twenty
 (20) of such years, not necessarily consecutive."

 When the company discovered the error, it withheld one week's pay from the claimant.

 The Organization filed a claim as stated above for the one week's pay to be paid to the claimant. Briefly stated, the Organization claiu4s that the Carrier violated Rules 1, 15 and 23 of the Agreement.

 The Board has carefully considered the various awards submitted by the Carrier and the Organization i~rith regard to tine recoupement of payments mistakenly made by the Carrier, and in particular those awards, that deal with overpayments for vacations. The Board ryas paid special attention to Third Division Award 91.17 (Referee Begley),, to Third Division Award 9581 (Referee Johnson), Third Division ~'Lsrr:.rd 15067 (referee Zach) and Third. Division Award 2172 (Referee Caples), The Board has also considered all ox" the awards submitted by the Organization and has paid pwrtic-ola.r attention to AVrarc3.s 15912, 171-2, and 19937, a7-l of which are Third Division Awards. This Board is of the view that the circumstances of the case dictate whether ove!~pa,,,nnents may be recouped. As stated. by Referee Sickles in Third Division Award 19937:

Where the claimant is shown to have been aware of the impropriety of the payment in question, recoupement maybe had.

 The Carrier here has taken the position that the claimant was aware of the fact that she eras not entitled to a five ,reeks vacation. If this Board were convinced that the Carrier's position was sound, the Board would deny the claim. It is the Carrier, however, who has the burden of proving such an allegation (Ai,;ard 15912 - McGovern). The statersent of Yvonne M, deLagneau is double hearsay and the statement of Lillie H. Adams hardly has probative significance. The claimant gave a written statement of her own to the effect
 Form l Award No, 7987
 Page 3 Docket No. 7853
 2-SCL-CM-'79

 that when she took her vacation in 1976 she thought she was entitled to five weeks and at no time prior thereto was she advised she was not so entitled_ This was, of course, a self-serving statement but its credibility rust be viewed against the fact that the Carrier posted her name as one entitled to five weeks vacation. The Carrier failed to show any evidence that any representative of the Carrier at arty tame prior to the taking of the claimant's vacation advised her in any fashion that she was not entitled to the (fifth week as stated in the vacation notice. The only question that the record raises as to the claimant's sta,tenent in view of the fact that the Carrier made up the vacation last and posted the vacation notice, is the jump from three to five weeks in the amount of vacation listed as the claimant's vacation. Iv this connection, :it should be noted tYai, the Clair-ant eras a coach cleaner who had worked for the Carrier for some twenty years. The record fails to show that the claimant was familiar with the terms of the collective bargainingagreement with reference to vacations. The record does not indicate what degree of education the clairi=wnt had. On balance, where, as here, the clawnant says that: she relied on notice as to the amrount and kind of vacation she was to take, which was posted by the Carrier and made up by the Carrier, the Board believes that the Carrier has not satisfied its burden of proof to show that the claimant was aware that an error had been .node by the Carriers To deny the claim Z:To-~z7.d. result in the claimant losing one week's pay when, in fact, she undrnabteddy wau7_d have worked and received pay had the Carrier provided her with accurate information. The Board is of the view that this disypute falls z:ore closely within the Award of Referee Sickles referred to above and consequently the Board will sustain the claim.






Attest: Executive Secretary
 National Railroad Adjustment Board

 BY ~-i'~.F-~.~-
 .~h se~aarie Br asch -- Administrative Assistant

 Dated ~t Chicago., Illinois., this 20th day of June, 1979,