Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 10534
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 9979
2-BN-CM-'85
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered.
( Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States
( and Canada
Parties to Dispute:
( Burlington Northern Railroad Company
Dispute: Claim of Employes:
1. That the Carrier violated the holiday provisions of the National
Agreement of August 21, 1954 and admendments (sic) thereto provided
in the National Agreements of August 19, 1960, November 21, 1964,
February 4, 1965 and September 2, 1969, when they arbitrarily
denied holiday pay for July 4, 1981 to its employees, in violation
of Rule 6 of the current controlling agreement effective January 1,
1945, amended June 1, 1952 and revised April 1, 1971.
2. That accordingly, the Burlington Northern Railroad compensate
Carman R. J. Bash, D. L. Branstetter, J. E. Cobb, H. L. Isbell, J.
B. Johnson, G. D. Montgomery, R. E. Peavey, J. L. Wallin and D. L.
Hubbard eight (8) hours each at the carman welder's straight time
pro rata rate.
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 employes 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.
The pivotal issue in this dispute is whether or not compensation paid
Claimants was credited to the workday immediately preceding the July 4, 1981
holiday. Claimants worked their first workday immediately following the July
4th holiday and were on scheduled vacation leave from June 29, 1981 through
July 3, 1981 or from June 29, 1981 through July 10, 1981.
In defense of their petition, Claimants assert that since they received
vacation compensation for the workday immediately preceding the July 4th
holiday, they were entitled to holiday pay pursuant to Rule 6(b), Section 3
of the Controlling Agreement. This provision reads:
Form 1
Page 2
Award No. 10534
Docket No. 9979
2-BN-CM-185
Section 3
"A regularly assigned employee shall qualify for the holiday pay
provided in Section 1 hereof if compensation paid him by the
Carrier is credited to the workdays immediately preceding and
following such holiday or if the employee is not assigned to work
but is available for service on such days. If the holiday falls on
the last day of a regularly assigned employee's workweek, the first
workday following his rest days shall be considered the workday
immediately following. If the holiday falls on the first workday
of his workweek, the last workday of the preceding workweek shall
be considered the workday immediately preceding the holiday."
(Emphasis added)
In essence, Claimants argue that vacation compensation is considered
payment for a workday within the context of Section 3 and thus, they are
entitled to holiday pay.
Carrier maintains that Claimants did not meet the qualifying conditions
for holiday pay since they did not work on June 26, 1981, their actual
workday under the Controlling Agreement. It notes the Carmen's Organization
had conducted a strike on June 26, 1981 and accordingly, Claimants did not
work on that day. It asserts that Section 7(a) of Rule 6(b) is interpretatively controlling herein, since this provision clearly establishes that
only actual "workdays or days" immediately preceding and following the
employees vacation period shall be considered "workdays or days" preceding
the holiday for purposes of qualification. It contends that since June 26,
1981 was the workday immediately preceding Claimants' vacation period and
since Claimants were not credited compensation for this day, Claimants did
not qualify for the July 4, 1981 holiday pay. It avers that a vacation day
is not a workday. Section 7(a) is referenced as follows:
"When any of the seven recognized holidays enumerated in Section 1
of this Article II, or any day which by agreement, or by law or
proclamation of the State or Nation, has been substituted or is
observed in place of any of such holidays, falls during an hourly
or daily rated employee's vacation period, he shall, in addition to
his vacation compensation, receive the holiday pay provided for
therein provided he meets the qualification requirements specified.
The 'workdays' and 'days' immediately preceding and following the
vacation period shall be considered the 'workdays' and 'days'
preceding and following the holiday for such qualification
purposes."
Form 1 Award No. 10534
Page 3 Docekt No. 9979
2-BN-CM-185
In our review of this case, we agree with Carrier's position. In a
recent Second Division Award dealing with the same basic issue and involving
the same organization and Carrier, the Board held that a vacation day is not
a workday under Section 3, even though an employee is compensated for that
vacation day. See Second Division Award No. 9977. In the case at bar, there
is nothing in the record to warrant a distinguishable assessment of Award
9977 since the salient question is the same. Claimants were on strike on
June 26, 1981, their actual last workday and did not receive compensation for
this concerted self help action. Moreover, and importantly, consistent with
Second Division Award No. 9977 a vacation day is not considered a workday
under Section 3 of Rule 6(b) and Carrier's denial of Claimants' petition was
appropriate under the cited rules.
A WAR D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Second Division
Attest:
Nancy .,over - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 11th day of September 1985.