THE CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS PACIFIC
RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Southern Railway that Signalman F. D. Williams of the Signal Shop, Lexington, Kentucky, be compensated in accordance with the current Signalmen's Agreement and the Vacation Agreement signed at Chicago, Illinois, on December 17, 1941, while he relieved Acting Signal Foreman W. S. Henricks from Monday, December 19, 1949, to December 31, 1949, both dates included.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The claim as presented to this Board reflects the nature of the claim as presented to the Carrier by the General Chairman in a letter dated January 30, 1950, which is reproduced:
an average of $25.054 per work day for each day service was performed as foreman. That there is no basis under the effective agreements for such claim is obvious.
In conclusion, carrier respectfully submits that signalman Williams has been compensated in accordance with the effective Signalmen's Agreement, the Vacation Agreement and Supplemental Vacation Agreement, all as revised, while relieving regularly assigned signal foreman Hendricks who took "an annual vacation of ten (10) consecutive work days with pay" beginning on Monday, December 19, and ending on Friday, December 30, 1949; therefore, the claim for pay for Saturday, December 24, and Saturday, December 31, the sixth day of each of two work weeks of signal foreman Hendricks, is wholly without merit and should be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts, citation of rules alleged to control and the position of the parties with respect thereto, are set out in full in the record and will not be reviewed in detail in this Opinion.
In brief, Petitioners rely on certain rules, cited in the record, and on behalf of Peitioners, and Award 6496 recently adopted by this Division of the Board. In Award 6496, it is stated that the case is controlled by the provisions of Rule 10 (a) of the Vacation Agreement, Rule 47 of the effective Agreement (also under consideration in this claim) and the method of payment, i.e., monthly rate as divided by 30 to obtain the daily rate.
Respondent Carrier relies on rules of the effective Agreement and rules of the Vacation Agreement, Supplemental Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, and revisions thereof, effective September 1, 1949, in relation to the factual situation herein presented.
We view Section 2 (b) of the revised Vacation Agreement to be highly important to a solution to the problem here presented. It provides in part:
The work days under consideration and for which the Claimant worked for the vacationing foreman started on Monday, December 19, 1949 and in our opinion ended at the close of business on Friday, December 30, 1949. The work week consisted of five 8-hour days, rest day Sunday, and subject to call, if needed, on Saturday of the week. Therefore, Claimant was subject to call, if neede, on Saturday, December 24, 1949 as the same came within the "Consecutive" ten working day period of the vacation in question, for which he was relieving. However, the vacation period ended on Friday, December 30, and with its expiration the vacationing foreman was again subject to call, if needed, as his vacation period had ended.
We view the meaning of the use of the word "Consecutive" herein as not being broken by the intervening days, Saturday, December 24, and Sunday, December 25, 1949. But, as stated, the vacation period expired on Friday, December 30, 1949.
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 Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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 659912 1186