Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 9424
SECOND DIVISION Docket No.
9+31
2-CMStP&P-CM-'8?.
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee James F. Scearce when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
Parties to Dispute: ( and Canada
(
( Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employee:
1. That Carman F. Fricano was unjustly denied payment of three (3) days'
bereavement pay from May 23, 1980 through May
26,
1980,
2. That the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company be,
ordered to compensate Canman F. Fricano in the amount of three (3) days'
pay at the rate applicable to his position at the time he was denied
such payment.
Findings
The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all,
the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employs or employee involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employs within the meaning of the Railway Tabor 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 was assigned to work at the Carrier's facility at Bensenville,
Illinois, regularly assigned to Tuesday through Saturday and Sunday and Monday
as rest days at the time of events germane to this dispute. On May 23, 1980 -a Friday -- he was scheduled to start duty at 3·00 P.m. Prior to such time, he;
was advised that his father had passed away in Italy, where he lived. The
Claimant did not report for duty that day or May 24, also a scheduled work day.
He filed a claim for three days' pay citing Article V of the December
6,
1978
Mediation Agreement (in pertinent part):
"Bereavement leave, not in excess of three calendar days,
following the date of death will be allowed in case of
death of an employee's brother, sister, parent, child,
spouse or spouse's parent. In such cases a minimum
basic day's pay at the rate of the last service rendered
will be allowed for the number of working days lost
during bereavement leave. Employees involved will make
provision for taking leave with their supervising officials in the usual manner. Any restrictions against
blanking jobs or realigning forces will not be applicable when an employee is absent under this provision."
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 9424
Docket No.
9+31
2-CMStP&P-CM-'83
The Carrier denied the claim, while not questioning the validity of the death,
on the basis that such benefit is intended to be applied so as to make up losses
in compensation where an employs must attend a funeral or attend to matters related
to such a tragic circumstance. Here, the Carrier argues, the Claimant neither
attended nor could have attended the funeral. The Carrier cites an interpretative
bulletin it issued explaining how such leave is to be applied, and which the
Carrier asserts was agreed to by appropriate representatives of the Organization.
Noting that nothing in the record attests to the mutuality of agreement of such
interpretations, we are also unable to find guidance in such bulletin that makes
attendance of a funeral a condition of receipt of bereavement pay. Certain
questions and answers establish the timing of application of such leave in
relation to the timing of a funeral but does not mandate attendance per se.
Article V does not specifically require attendance at a funeral in order for an
employs to gain entitlement; presumably, the parties would have so stated had
they intended such a narrow interpretation.
In the instant case it was uncontested that the Claimant was notified of the
loss of his father on May 23,
1980
prior to commencement of work sad was entitled
to lay off that day. He was off on the 24th as well, under circumstances which
this Board finds in concert with the intent of Article V. However, May 25,
1980
was a scheduled rest day and the Claimant consequently lost nothing by observing
such day. In sum, the Claimant's actions were directly related to his father's
death and are a reasonable application of the relevant provisions of the
December
6, 1978
Mediation Agreement. Article V was violated by denying the
Claimant compensation for May 23 ,and 21+,
1980;
he is to be made whole in that
regard. No compensation is deserved for May 25,
1980.
A W A R D
Claim sustained in accordance with the Findings.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest: Acting Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board
By
~/ ~,L~
R semarie Brssch - Administrative Assistant
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of March, 1983.