L. Dodson, W. R. Powell, N. A. Dunegan, G. C. Willis, William Watkins and James Hayward employes of the Dining Car Department of the carrier, who were not paid the basic guaranteed wage for the month of July, 1947 as provided by Rule 3 of the existing agreement.
We further claim that Rule 3 of the existing agreement has been violated in that these employes were regularly assigned on Trains 1 and 10 operating between Chicago, Illinois and Denver, Colorado and that a cancellation of this run during a period of flood waters in the Nebraska and Iowa areas does not relieve the carrier of his responsibility under Rule 3 of the agreement.
We claim that these and other employes of the carrier so affected be compensated for the difference in the number of hours paid for the month of July as against the number of hours guaranteed under the terms of Rule 3 of the agreement.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On June 23, 1947, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company issued bulletin No. 48, Notice of Cancellation of Run, to dining car employes C. Stroud, L. Dodson, W. R. Powell, N. A. Dunagan, G. C. Willis, W. Watkins and J. Hayward The runs cancelled by this bulletin were runs which were considered regular assignments and on which these employes had made bids and been assigned as a result of these bids. During the period mentioned, flood waters in Iowa and Nebraska prevented the movement of trains through that area. Other runs were cancelled for the same reason which have resulted in this claim being filed for other employes similarly situated.
The contract between the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy and this organization provides for a basic monthly guarantee of 240 hours of pay for all employes regularly assigned even though such hours are not entirely consumed by the work of the employe. A copy of rule 3 of the Agreement referred to is attached as Exhibit A.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The contract entered into by this organization and the CBQ Railroad Company was consummated for the purpose of providing satisfactory wages, hours and working conditions for employes represented and to provide security and continuity of employment. Rule 3 of the Agreement referred to as Exhibit A is one of the provisions of the Agreement which assured a minimum monthly guarantee to employes regularly assigned. This rule is not modified in any respect. It places upon the carrier the responsibility of a payment for 240 hours to all employes regularly as-
In the instant controversy it is clearly and irrefutably evidenced by Carrier's Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 that the cancellation and re-bulletining of the assignments involved in the instant controversy was handled in strict conformity with the principle established by the foregoing awards.
At this point attention is directed to paragraph (d) of Rule 5 of the controlling collective agreement, reading:
The provisions of this rule make it unmistakably clear that the basic month guarantee applies to assignments and not to individuals, inasmuch as when one or more employes work on a particular assignment, guarantee payments are divided between the employes rendering service thereon in the same ratio as the hours worked by each employe bears to the basic month of 240 hours.
In conclusion, the Carrier avers that the claimants were not "regularly assigned" within the meaning of Rule 3, in consequence of which the provisions thereof are inapplicable, and the instant claim must, therefore, in all things be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: On June 23, 1947, the Carrier cancelled a regularly assigned run of the dining car employes herein shown as claimants, because of floods which prevented the movement of trains. The Carrier contends that this situation makes inapplicable the monthly guarantee rule relied upon by the Organization. This rule provides:
It is the contention of the Carrier that the monthly guarantee applies only to regular assigned employes and, as here, where positions are properly abolished, the guarantee does not apply to the partial month worked. The monthly guarantee is a part of the Agreement because of the nature of the work of dining car employes. They are given a monthly assignment which, because of layovers and the intermittent nature of the work, is subject to much uncertainty as to whether eight hours' work can be performed on many days of the assignment. Because of this situation, an employe who fills his 4066-6 673
monthly assignment is guaranteed a minimum number of hours, here 240 hours per month. Consequently, an employe who fills his assignment to the extent that the service permits will receive credit for a monthly minimum of 240 hours.
When, however, there is no work to be performed for a part of the month and the position is properly abolished, the 240 hour minimum must be treated as a basic guarantee for the monthly assignment, That the Carrier properly abolished the positions cannot be questioned. Floods preventing train operations eliminated the work of dining car employes without fault of the Carrier and subjected their assignments to cancellation. We hold that the claim of the employes for a 240 hour minimum month Is not well taken under the circumstances shown. In the present ease, the positions were not rebulletined until July 9, 1947. The amounts paid claimants for the month of July, 1947, are far in excess of the basic application of the monthly guarantee of 240 hours. We need not concern ourselves, therefore, with calculating the basic amount of the guarantee for July, 1947, as it would apply to these claimants.
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