Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 8459
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 8252
2-D&TSL-CM-'80
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United
( States and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
(
( Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company violated Rule
4 (a) (c) of the controlling Agreement, revised and effective January
1, 1959, and Article III, Section
3,
of the August 19, 1960 National
Agreement.
2. That The Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company violated Rule
19 (a) 1 of the controlling Agreement, revised and effective January 1,
1959, during the processing of the claim on the property.
3.
That The Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company be ordered to
compensate Carman J. Rose eight
(8)
hours straight time for February 20,
1978.
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 and 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.
Claimant is employed as a carman at carrier's Toledo train yards from
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest
days. Claimant was scheduled to work on Washington's Birthday, Monday, February
20, 1978. He reported off that day. Carrier subsequently refused to pay him
the straight time holiday pay authorized by Rule 4(a)(c) and Article III, Section
3, of the 1960 national agreement.
It is unrefuted that claimant worked the day before and the day after the
holiday. The organization claims that this is all that is required to receive the
holiday pay.
Rule 4(a) states that employes will receive eight hours pay for enumerated
holidays. Washington's Birthday is one of these authorized holidays. There is
Form 1 Award No.
8459
Page
2
Docket No.
8252
2-D&TSL-CM-'80
no dispute on that point. Rule
4(c)
states that employes shall qualify for
holiday pay, if they are compensated for work on the day before and the day
after a holiday. There is also no question that claimant met these requirements.
Article III, Section
3,
of the
1960
national agreement further clarifies
what constitutes the day before a holiday and the day after for variously assigned
employees.
In handling this case on the property, the parties have accused each other of
procedural violations. If the board were persuaded by the organization's argument
that carrier did not give a reason for its denial of the claim, or if we were to
deny the claim as not timely appealed, as asserted by carrier, the case would
be decided on a procedural basis. A careful review of the record, however,
persuades this board that all procedural arguments presented by both sides must
fail.
From the record before us or a review of schedule agreement Rule
19,
the
board cannot construe claimant's time card, as submitted for holiday pay, to be a
claim or a grievance as contemplated by Rule 19. (See, for example, Award No.
6256.)
We, therefore, consider the organization letter of April
17, 1978,
as
the initiation of the claim involved here. Consequently, all appeals were filed
in a timely manner and this case must be decided on its merits.
Rule 4(a) and
4(c)
of the agreement state that the enumerated holidays will
be paid at straight time rates. In order in qualify for this payment, an employee
must be compensated for time worked the day before and the day after the holiday.
Claimant met this work requirement. While he did not work as scheduled on the
holiday and carrier considers this a dereliction of duty, we find no requirement
in the agreement that claimant must work the holiday because he was scheduled
to in order to receive the holiday pay. This board has interpreted this holiday
pay article on a number of occasions and has stated in previous awards (for
example, Award
6474)
that the only condition precedent for payment of the holiday
in this instance is that claimant be compensated for work on the day before and the
day after the holiday. It is undisputed that claimant met this requirement.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
BY
osemarie Brasch - A·
Dat d at Chicago, Ill