STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen of America on the Erie Railroad that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: When the vacation schedule for 1954 was drawn up and the employes notified, J. R. O'Connor was assigned a vacation date commencing July 6, 1954, through July 12, 1954, and December 27, 1954, through December 31, 1954.
On July 6, 1954, the claimant commenced his vacation schedule and ended this part of the schedule on July 12 1954, as previously agreed to by the Brotherhood and the Carrier. Then in September 1954, after the signing of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, the Carrier advised the claimant to make request for his additional week's vacation due him under the provisions of the August 21, 1954 Agreement. The claimant requested that he be granted a vacation from December 20, 1954, through December 24, 1954. On September 20 1954 the claimant was advised by the Carrier ,hat his request for dates from December 20, 1954, through December 24, 1954, had been granted.
On October 12, 1954, the Carrier advised the claimant, that he would only be granted four (4) days' vacation, December 21 through 24 1954; due to July 5, 1954, falling on a work day of the work week of the claimant, he would be required to take July 5, 1954, as a day of his vacation even though the holiday fell on a work day prior to the commencing date of the' claimant's holiday period and not during his vacation period.
The claimant was required to work his assignment on December 20, 1954, a day of his vacation assignment assigned and granted to him by letter dated September 20, 1954, by the Carrier.
The claimant was compensated for the day immediately prior to and following the holiday on July 5, 1954; therefore, he qualified for the holiday
The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes accepted the interpretation and progressed no claims. The Order of Railroad Telegraphers progressed two claims similar to the instant case and after conference withdrew and closed the cases. The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes submitted a claim and after conference withdrew and closed the case. The other organizations agreed that when a holiday was paid for under Article 11, Section 1, of the Agreement that such day could be applied against vacation under Article I, Section 3.
Therefore, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen is endeavoring to obtain a different interpretation for the year 1954 applying to one individual than applied to all other non-operating employes on this railroad.
All data presented hearin have been presented to or are known to the employes.
OPINION OF BOARD: The basic fundamentals in this case are similar to those in SG-8429, this day decided as Award 7852, but the circumstances here differ slightly.
Claimant J. R. O'Connor took his 1954 vacation, by agreement with the Carrier, at two different periods:
Carrier, however, gave him holiday pay for July 5 1954 and then, on the asserion such oliday fell on a workday of the employe's work week, denied him a day of vacation when he took the final portion of his vacation in December.
However, in this case, as in Docket SG-8429, we must and do hold claimant was not on vacation July 5, 1954 because his vacation period did not begin until July 6. We must also hold that the July 5 holiday fell outside ' ` his vacation period, and a sustaining Award is, therefore, in order.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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