STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Joint Council Dining Car Employes, Local 582, on the property of the Southern Pacific Railroad Com pany for and in behalf of William Sewell, and others, similarly situated, fot the amount of money due in lieu of not aving received the correct number of vacation days as provided for by the Current Agreement and the Selective Service and Training Act of 1940, as amended.
EMPLOYE'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: The facts in the instant matter are not in dispute insofar as the Organization is concerned. The issue involved is whether Claimant, and others similarly situated, are entitled to compensa tion in lieu of seven (7) vacation days for the calendar year 1948. The applicable provisions of the Current Agreement, effective December 1, 1947 are herewith set out:
"(b) Effective with calendar year 1947 an annual vacation of fourteen (14) consecutive days (time allowance not to exceed a total of one hundred and twelve (112) hours) shall be granted employes who have qualified therefor by having rendered not less than seventeen hundred and twenty-eight (1728) hours of compensated service an positions covered by this agreement during the preceding calendar year and who have five (5) or more years of continuous service, and who rendered not less than seventeen hundred and twenty-eight (1728) hours of compensated service on such positions in each of five (5) of such years, not necessarily consecutive.
14-day vacation in that year, with compensation for 112 hours, because he had not qualified for same by having rendered not less than 1725 hours of compensated service on positions covered by the current agreement during the preceding calendar year and similarly in 4 other years of continuous service. He rendered such compensated service only in 3 such years; therefore, he had not qualified for the 14-day vacation.
Agreement rule 26 provides that: "Any claim for compensation or any grievance, except as provided in Rule 25 relating to hearings, not presented in writing by the employe to the Superintendent, within ninety (90) days from date of occurrence, giving rise to the claim or grievance, shall be deemed to have been abandoned."
The rule is clear and unambiguous and admits of no interpretation other than that an employe must present a claim or grievance in writing and such action must take place within the time limit specified otherwise no claim of grievance exists.
The record clearly shows that neither the names of the claimants desig. rated as "others similarly situated" nor any facts and circumstances in regard to them have been presented to the carrier. The obligation for the proper presentation of such data rests with the claimants, if any exist, and not with the carrier.
The carrier therefore asserts that it has not received due and proper notice of claim, as to such individuals, as contemplated in the current agreement a: well as in Section 3, First, subsection (j), of the Railway Labor Act, which reads, in part, as follows:
Circular 1, issued October 10, 1934 by the National Railroad Adjustment Board covering "Organization and Certain Rules of Procedure" provides, in part, as follows:
As the claims in behalf of the unnamed individuals have not been handled in the usual manner (as provided in the current agreement) up to and including the chief operating officer, no claims as to such individuals are properly before this Board and they should be dismissed.
CONCLUSION: The carrier has demonstrated, conclusively, that the alleged claim is abandoned and therefore it should be dismissed; furthermore. the carrier has also demonstrated that claimant (William Sewell) was accorded all that was due him for vacation allowance under the current agreement, and if the Board assumes jurisdiction we submit that the alleged claim should be denied on the grounds that it is entirely without merit.
OPINION OF BOARD: By interpretation of the Agreement between the parties as applied to the circumstances of this case, making it unnecessary to pass on the applicability of Rule 26, the evidence shows the Carriers action was in conformity with Rule 21 and the claim should be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: