F orm 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9306
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9262
2-N&W-SM-'82
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Rodney E. Dennis when award was rendered.
( Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
Parties to Dispute
( Norfolk and Western Railway Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That Sheet Metal Worker, P. D. Flood was improperly compensated
under the terms of the current agreement for February 18, 1980
(Washington's birthday), while on vacation.
2. That accordingly, the Carrier be ordered to additionally compensate
Sheet Metal Worker, P. D. Flood for four hours at the time and one
half rate of pay for the holiday of February 18, 1980.
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 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 P. D. Flood is a Sheetmetal Worker in Carrier's Brewster, Ohio,
Shops. He was on vacation on Washington's Birthday, February 18, 1980. Carrier
worked his position on the holiday. It paid the relief man eight hours for the
holiday and eight hours at time-and-one-half for working the holiday, or a total
of 20 hours straight time.
Claimant was also paid 20 hours straight time for the holiday--eight hours
vacation pay at straight time and eight hours at time-and-one-half-- because his
,job was worked on the holiday. Claimant contends, however, that he should have
been paid 28 hours straight time and not 20.
The Organization cites a letter from J. W. 0 ram, Chairman of the Eastern
Carriers' Conference Committee to A. R. Lowry, President of the T.C. Division of
BRAC, dated May 25, 1970, as its support in this case. In that letter, 0 ram
indicated that if an employe is on vacation and a paid holiday occurs during hiss
vacation and Carrier fills the holiday position with a relief man, the incumbent
who is on vacation should receive 28 hours pay for that. This is broken down into
eight hours for the vacation day, eight hours for the holiday, and an additional
eight hours at time-and-one-half because the job was worked--or a total of 28
hours. It also alleges that Carrier violated Article
7
(a) of the December 17,
19+1, Vacation Agreement.
Form 1 Award No.93p6
Page 2 Docket No. 9262
2-N&W-SM-'82
Article 7(a) provides:
"An employee having a regular assignment will be paid while
on vacation the daily compensation paid by the carrier for
such assignment."
The Interpretation dated June 10, 19+2, reads:
"This contemplates that an employee having a regular assignment
will not be any better or worse off, while on vacation, as to
the daily compensation paid by the carrier than if he had
remained at work on such assignment, this not to include casual
or unassigned overtime or amounts received from others than
the employing carrier."
Carrier contends that the Orarm's letter is not applicable to the instant
dispute because it is not addressed to the Sheetmetal Workers. The Agreement
under which this dispute has arisen was dated May 12, 1972, two years after the
Bram letter. Further the Oram letter is vague as to the conditions under which
the letter was requested and written.
Carrier further contends that the June 10, 19+2, interpretation of Article
7(a) of the
1941
Agreement supports its position, not the Organization's. It
argues that the National Holiday Agreement was amended two years after the Oram
letter to eliminate a situation such as the Union claims exists in this case.
Pertinent language from that revision is as follows:
"Article II, Section
5(c)
Under no circumstances will an employee be allowed, in
addition to his holiday pay, more than one time and onehalf payment for service performed by him on a holiday
which is also a work day; a rest day and/or a vacation
day."
It also cites as supporting its case Article I2 (a) of the applicable Vacation
Agreement:
"12. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this agreement a
carrier shall not be required to assume greater expense because
of granting a vacation than would be incurred if an employee
were not granted a vacation and was paid in lieu therefore
under the provision hereof."
A review of this record by the Board reveals that all of the contract
language pertinent to this case supports Carrier's position. Article 7 (a)
provides that an employe will be no better or no worse off having taken a
vacation or having worked. In the instant case, Claimant received 20 hours pay
on vacation. He would have received the same 20 hours had he worked and not
taken vacation.
Form 1
Page
3
Award No.
9306
Docket No.
9262
2-N&W-SM-'82
This Board is of the opinion that the Oram letter does not apply to the
instant dispute and that the interpretation of the pertinent contract language
compels the Board to deny the claim.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad
Adjustment Board
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
emarie Brasch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of September, 1982.