Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 12020
SECOND DIVISION Docket No. 11932
91-2-90-2-40
The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood Railway Carmen/Division of TCU PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

1. That under the current working Agreement, as amended, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company did unilaterally and arbitrarily violate Rule 1(e) of the September 1, 1974 Agreement, as amended, by abolishing all of the repair track positions with Saturday and Sunday as rest days and rebulletining all of the repair track positions with Mondays and Tuesdays as rest days and by working all the employes on their rightful rest days at the straight time rate of pay.

2. That accordingly, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company be ordered to compensate the following listed Claimants eight (8) hours pay for each Monday in June, 1988 and eight (8) hours pay for each Tuesday in June, 1988 that they were denied the right to work on those Mondays and Tuesdays and were forced to observe those Mondays and Tuesdays as their off days in violation of the Agreement for the total amount of hours specified below at their pro rata rate of pay.











Time claimed was for the Mondays and Tuesdays in June, 1988 that the Claimants would have normally worked and should have been allowed to work (Mondays and Tuesdays) in accordance with the Agreement and were made to work on Saturdays and Sundays in violation of the Agreement. Claim is made only for time and days that the Claimants should have been allowed to work and normally would have worked.

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 employee involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
Form 1 Award No. 12020
Page 2 Docket No. 11932
91-2-90-2-40
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.



In our Award 12015 we considered an identical Claim to that involved in this Docket. The Claim in Award 12015 was for 8 Claimants for 3 dates during May 1988. This Claim is for 8 Claimants for 8 dates in June 1988. We will follow the decision in Award 12015 and sustain this Claim.








Attest: low
        Nancy J. -Executive Sec~reiary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of February 1991.

100