1. The Carrier violated the agreement between the parties when it failed and refused to properly compensate J. W. Russell, Telegrapher-Clerk, Henryetta, Oklahoma, December 25, 1954, and January 1, 1955.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: An agreement on rules and rates of pay governing working conditions between the parties of this dispute was in effect at the time this dispute arose, effective October 1, 1947, a copy thereof which is on file with this Board and is a ready reference; also the Schedule Agreement revision:
OPINION OF BOARD: The confronting claim involves a claim for holiday pay on behalf of Telegrapher-Clerk J. W. Russell for December 25, 1954 and January 1, 1955. Claimant was regularly assigned as TelegrapherClerk at Henryetta. Oklahoma with a work week Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. It appears that in addition to working his regularly established work week, he customarily worked on one of his rest days, Saturday, at time and one-half rate. The holidays in question occurred on the two successive Saturdays, and Claimant worked both holidays for which he was compensated at the punitive rate. Claim is here made for an additional payment of eight hours at pro rata rate for each of the two holidays.
Petitioner contends that since Claimant regularly worked one of his rest days, such additional day, for all practical purposes, became part of his work week. Hence he was in fact working a work week of six days.
The respondent Carrier relies upon Article II, Section 1 of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954, and therefore, contends that since the holidays in question did not fall within Claimant's regularly established work week of Monday through Friday, he was ineligible for the claimed holiday pay.
This case turns upon the construction of " · . when such holiday falls on a work day of the work-week of the individual employe", which is part of Article II, Section 1 of the cited National Agreement.
Therefore, the pertinent question is, what was Claimant's work-week within the meaning of the rule? Under the 40-Hour Work-Week Agreement the standard work week is five days, eight hours each. Claimant was unquestionably so assigned, with two designated rest days. The fact that he worked one of these rest days, even with some degree of regularity, does not have the effect of expanding his work week as that term is contemplated in the relevant agreements. Therefore, under the terms of the Article II, Section 1 of the cited National Agreement this claim is not supported. Since this Division does not possess equity powers, the claim must stand or fall upon the construction of the rules of the Agreement. In the instant case the rules do not support the claim.
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