Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SECOND DIVISION
Award No. 13783
Docket No. 13673
03-2-02-2-34

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Don A. Hampton when award was rendered.


( Transportation Communications International Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:





FINDINGS:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees 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. 13783
Page 2 Docket No. 13673
03-2-02-2-34

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.




On August 31, 2000 the Claimant ". . . called the Carrier and left a message that he would be off of work on September 1, 2000 due to his illness, requesting a compensated sick day." September 1, 2000 happened to be the Claimant's last scheduled work day prior to the Labor Day Holiday. The Claimant received sick pay for September 1, 2000 and holiday pay for Labor Day, September 4, 2000.


The Carrier subsequently determined that the Holiday pay was paid in error and eight hours pay was deducted from the Claimant's pay from the pay period that ended September 16, 2000 thus generating the claim before us.






The Rule clearly states that an employee must either work or be available for work on the last work day prior to and the first work day subsequent to the holiday; further that the Carrier may waive these requirements. In the case at hand, the Claimant called and left a message that he would not be in due to illness. There is no indication what so ever that the Carrier waived any of the provisions of Rule 14. The Claimant left a message that he would not be in and this is not the same as requesting from management permission to be absent. As the Carrier obviously did not waive the requirements of Rule 14 there has been no Rule violation. Such decision by the Carrier based on the facts of record in this claim do not seem unreasonable or arbitrary.

Form 1 Award No. 13783
Page 3 Docket No. 13673


The Organization's contention that a similar claim settled on the property with another labor Organization established a precedent does not withstand scrutiny. First the settlement in question indicates that the settlement was without precedent and secondly the terms of the agreement in that case were markedly different than Rule 14 which is controlling in this claim. As there has been no Rule violation the claim must be denied.


                        AWARD


      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.


                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Second Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of October 2003.