Form 1 NATIO1TAL RAILROAD ADJUSTTE1T BOARD Award No. 8260
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 7703
2-PT&W-CM-' 80

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Dana E. Eischen linen award was rendered.

( System Federation No. 16, Railway Employes'

( Department, A. F. of L. - C. 1..0.

Parties to Disroute: ( (Carmen)

( Norfolk and Western Railimy Company

Dispute: Cla;" of E-oloyes:

1. That under the current z:=orking agreement the Norfolk' and tq'estern Railuay

Company imp°ronerlZr conpensated Cwrr'.an r . K-.utzke and Gar man J. Di .si rrer

for eight '(8)_hours each at straight time rate of pay on their reoL'_rly

assigned rest day, Saturday, 2~ay 15, 10,76, at Frankfort, Indiana.

2. That accordingly theorfoL: and Western Railway Connary be ordered to

additionally ccj"pensate Cannwn 1,. Klut :1>e and C arnan J. Dis -inzger for

four (4) addit:ll onal hours each at straigllt time rate of Y~ay for l'.ay

15' 1976.

Findin;s

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the e·;mloye or employes involved in thf.,s are respectively carrier and ei~:r,)loye within the meaning, of the Rail;ray Labor -=r:.as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has Jurisdiction over the d1_spute involved herein.

Parties to said disptate waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.

Claimants were both raglzlarl~,r assigned to positions as Vacation Relief

Carmen at Carrier's renair tr.cn and Transportation Yard at ='ran'fort, Indiana.
The bulletined duties of t1iose nosition; are air fO.Uo','Ts: ~1.., asjtl:C"ing, the assgn
ment of the pos'! 'ion relieved, also ;·Tor=; i rav; a s Car:=an on Repazr 7,-hen not
relieving vacation vacancies ?.nC! any other wor', nertaining to this cr--,it.
(7:017 tdJ to 3:00 T~'~> d-.41Y, e-XcePt. ~a:t"J~:'iL'- a.nd uundayc are rest d^.~15, 1t ii01;~.
Claimants were assi-ned'to worn first sLk_ftY Saturday ~`_ay 15, 1~7Ci ar ~ vacation -elieZ
on the Rip T__^ae'k for employees who had been on vacation for the ;r:~e~ of ~.fa- 10.
Saturday I·'~- 1~ 1e~76 carried regular
The positions which G.Lr,.iz:anes filled on ~~, _ ~ - _
rest days o-i Sunday-P:bnday. F? c°h ClaiL:ant already had worked 1.'_onday T,.`ay 10
Cl
throll~';h Friday 1'a`1,y l~t, 1976 Un U'`i.i_c''.r a_-_-1iu=ents, Tr::1S Claimant Disin:-er had

_,

worked all that week as vacation ~'eli ef on the second s hif t in the 1j' -ain Y=.rd.
Clair:ant i;lutz'=a had ;,Toy teed -ay 10-?? as vacaticn rel-.ei on tlie shift in
the Train Yard; but cn __ay 13~ird 14 ljie ,;~ ,:zot as:i_gned to tra.,._._ion relief and
so worked in the he;j`~7.r Track 7^3 con;~;istent with iic b'L,lletinad duties. i''or
their eight hours of T%:ork on i.::~1- 15 Claimants z,,-ere compensated by Carrier a% the
Fore, 1 Award No. 8260
page 2 Docket No. 7703
2-N&W-.CI i-' 80

straight time rate. Claimants, through the Organization, =aintain that they should have been paid, time and one-half for that day and in the claim., filed dune 23, 197&, they seek an additional four hours pay.

The Organization contends that Carrier violated Rule 2 of the controllin Agreement when it required Claii·:ants to work only one day of the vacationing employees' assiGnments rather than the entire ass-grlment of the vacationin4 employees. Such a theory has been rejected in tae past by Awards of thi~ Lcard which we do not fir?d palre:aly erroneous. Thus, in 'A-ward 2-3781 , this ~iviSion stated: ".., when the re
~<;izlar incu~:bent of a position is absent on vacation,
there is no obligation upon the Carrier to fill that Position unless the a.ncnant
of work to be performed by the relievin'D ieving emploi·ees vould create an ~,zndue hardsL'iio
upon such eI~ployees." See also A7lards 2-1Ed*, 2-5711.'. ~:.'-5C7C, 2-3781, 2-61L:G, and
3-10753, all construin- Article 6 of the Hat-ion-al 'vacation Agceement. in the
present case there is no shc;ri ng that it was necessary to fill tile position of
the vacationing employees prior to ~?ay 15, 1976.

AdditonctL'ly, the Organization maintains that Cla~ma,nts were entitled under Rule 5 to ua,,;r:nent at the premi= rate for workinon Saturday since such is tt;eir bulletined rest day when they are working regularly on Uh- ip Tract-o This theory too ::-_ust fail, bec.uce Cla,i'--:ants ,re not regul-a=ly assi-nod to the rerrir track first shift .)oo ttion as such. out only wor k i n that capaci '.y and enjoy its regular rest days T.r=~n they are not needed to rerf orm the pr inwry duty of t'newr bulletined assi gnnent, wlz, ch is vacation relief.

On the date in question t-hey were fill inS a vacation vacancy on a day which ,,:-as not a rest day of the positilon they filled. The claim rust be denied.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

N ATICE "LL RAILROAD ADJ1ST-ET71 BOARD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad r:djust Lent Board

y.,'_. ~~..,3., ;,~x.,..--2..!'. : , `....rt'_.-. I:-

Rosemarierasoh - Ac'.~inls ~ta-t.vo :.ss~.u ~~n~

Dated~at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of P~iarch, 1980.