FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (SCOTT M.
LOFTIN AND JOHN W. MARTIN, TRUSTEES)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
The carrier be required to compensate Clerk C. A. King for a day's pay, when, as a result of changing his assigned relief day, his days of work per week were reduced below six in violation of the provisions of Rule 69 (a).
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On January 22, 1947, Clerk C. A. King, Miami, who was assigned to a position necessary to the continuous operation of the carrier, was notified by carrier's Ticket Agent that, effective January 29, the assigned relief day of his position would be changed from Tuesday to Wednesday, and he was relieved on Tuesday, January 28, and Wednesday, January 29.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: In support of their claim, the employes cite the following rules of the January 1, 1938, agreement:
The Railway has no desire to incur the additional work of abolishing and readvertising such positions, and it does not indulge in sharp practice, but it must protect itself by taking full advantage of the rights reserved to it in the agreement in order to protect Itself against a distortion of the agreement.
OPINION OF BOARD: In this claim Clerk King, who was assigned to a position necessary to continuous operation, had his relief day changed. He was relieved both on Tuesday, January 28. 1947 and a Wednesday, January 29. Thus the number of days he worked in a week was reduced to five. This was a violation of Rule 69, which guarantees six days' work per week.
In Award No. 3923 we sustained a claim involving the same situation and the same issues. This claim is between the same parties under the same Agreement.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the 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 Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and