NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Edward F. Carter, Referee
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: (a) Claim that W. Honeyman, whose regular assignment was that of signal maintainer at tower 5, be paid the difference between straight time rate of $1.00 per hour and the time and one-half rate for all services performed on Thursday, June 11, 1942, (his assigned seventh day off duty), when he was required by the management to fill the position of leading signal maintainer, first shift, at tower 5, taking the place of M. H. Napper, the employe regularly assigned to such position. Amount claimed $4.00.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: W. Honeyman was regularly assigned as Signal Maintainer on the first shift, tower 5, with Thursday of each week as his regular assigned day off duty. his assignment required him to work Sundays at the straight time rate, as provided in Article VI, Section 2, which reads:
"Work performed on Sundays and the following legal holidaysnamely, New Yeor' s Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas (provided when any of the above holidays fall on Sunday, the day observed by the State, Nation, or by proclamation shall be considered the holiday), shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half, except that employes necessary to the continuous operation of the Carrier and who are regularly assigned to such service will be assigned one regular day off duty in seven, Sunday if possible, and if required to work on such regularly assigned seventh day off duty will be paid at the rate of time and one-half time; when such assigned day off duty is not Sunday, work on Sunday will be paid for at straight time rate."
Honeyman was required by the management to relieve M. H. Napper, Leading Signal Maintainer, first shift, tower 5, from Sunday, June 7, to June 12, 1942, inclusive. In doing so he worked his regular assigned day off dutyThursday, June 11, 1942.
As indicated in the Statement of Claim, Honeyman was paid at the straight time rate instead of at time and one-half rate as the above quoted rule provides.
The agreement in effect between the parties, bearing ,effective date of June 12, 1923, governs the hours of service and working conditions for the Signal Department employes of the Kansas City Terminal Railway Company, and among other conditions covered by the agreement, the following is included: "This Agreement shall become effective June 12, 1923, and remain in full force and effect until superseded or amended." The rules involved in this dispute have not been superseded or amended since June 12, 1923.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is the position of the Brotherhood in this claim that W. Honeyman is entitled to the difference between the straight time
In addition to the foregoing it is the Carrier's request request that your Honorable Board review the written opinion of the Carrier members of your Board on this subject, in their "Dissent to Award No. 2340, Docket CL-2430;" and that your Board reconsider and set aside the decision in Award 2340 by dismissing this case account lack of justification.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was a regularly assigned Signal Maintainer with Thursday assigned as his one day of rest in seven. He was used on Thursday, June 11 1942, in relief of Leading Signal Maintainer Napper who was on vacation. Napper's assignment provided for pro-rata pay on Thursday, his day off being other than Thursday. The claim is for the difference in the straight time rate and the time and one-half rate which the Claimant declares is due him under Article VI, Section 2 of the current Agreement.
The evidence indicates that the violation of the foregoing rule occurred as alleged. It is the contention of the Carrier that the Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941, the parties to this dispute being parties to that agreement, controls the disposition of the foregoing claims and requires a finding of a lack of jurisdiction on the part of this Board to determine them, or, if jurisdiction is assumed, a denial of the claim under the terms of the Vacation Agreement.
SG-2979, adopted this date. For the reasons recited in the Opinion in that Award, we bold that the schedule Agreement controls the disposition of these claims and that an affirmative award is required.
parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934-
That this Droisien of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
The Award in this case having declared that the issues have been determined by Award No. 3022 Docket SG-2979 the dissent to Award No. 3022 is applicable to the award in this Docket SG-2981.