NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Third Division
Lloyd K. Garrison, Referee
FINDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, its approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the, dispute involved herein.
Tile parties to said dispute were given due nothe of hearing thereon.A.s a result of a deadlock, Lloyd K. Garrmal was ealled in as Referee to sit with the Division as a member thereof.
The parties have jointly certified the following statement of facts, anti the Third Division so finds:
"Prior to December :35, 1934, G. P. Ward, F. H. Fcitel, and William Dolan, employed as Yard Clerks at East Olnbridge, were paid their regular day's pay for every holiday on which they were not required by the Carrier to work. Effective with the holiday December 25, 1934, this method of payment was discontinued and thereafter These clerks were not paid for holidays not worked when the holiday was their regular assigned day of rest"
There is in evidence an agreement between the parties bearing effective date of July 15, 1925. Rule B2 thereof provides:
The Carrier contends that this provision of the rule does not apply when the day of relief of an employe (seventh day) falls on a holiday.
This rule is explicit, clear on its face, arid contains no exceptioas. It must, therefore, be literally applied. The effoc-t will be to give to the employes in question sev-en days' wages for six days' work. This is a result which if the parties had thought about it in the negotiation of their Agreement would doubtless have been avoided by express language. But there is no evidence that the parties thought about the matter. The contingency of the assigned day of rest falling on a holiday was shown by the Carrier's evidence to have been of rare occurrence. Its very rarity probably accounts for the failure to provide for it in the Agreement.
An analogous question was disposed of by the United States Railroad Labor Bon rd in Decision 3631, Docket 3538. The Agreement there in question provided
that where a holiday fell on a Sunday the day observed by the State, Nation, or by proclamation should be considered the holiday, and that work performed on such clay should be paid at the rate of time and one-half. An employe was assigned to work six days a week with Wednesday as his day of rest. Decoration Day fell on a Wednesday and he claimed payment for Thursday's work at the rate of time and one-half on the theory that Wednesday wss in effect his Sunday and that lie should, therefore, come under the rule. The rule, however, spoke only of Sunday and not of a week-day assigned in lieu thereof. The Board applied the rule literally and denied the employe's claim. The employe thus received less wages than other employes who also worked six clays a week but who were fortunate enough to have Sundays its their rest days. This was a result, which if the parties had thought about it, would doubtless have been avoided by express language. The parties evidently had not thought about the contingency and the Board had no recourse but to apply the Agreement as written. The same result must obtain in this case.