STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Employe Milton E. Prescott entered service of the Carrier and established seniority on May 13, 1954 when ho was assigned to position entitled "Auto-Messenger" at Fowler Street Station, Milwaukee, Wisconsin., 1 P. M. to 9:30 P. M. Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days.
Employe Prescott regularly worked the Auto Messenger position at Fowler St. from May 13, 1954 until June 16, 1954 at which time he applied for and was assigned to Position No. 10, Steno-Clerk, located in the office of the Assistant Superintendent at Muskego Yard, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. See Employes' Exhibit "A".
On Monday, May 31, 1954 Employe Prescott worked his assignment of Auto-Messenger, 1 P. M. to 9:30 P. M. Although Employe Prescott performed the required compensated service provided for in the August 21, 1954 agreement the day before and the day following the holiday, he was not paid for the holiday in accordance with the provisions of that Agreement.
Claim requesting payment due Employe Prescott was presented to Mr. I. G. Wallace, Agent, at Milwaukee, Wis., by the Division Chairman on February r, 1955. The Agent declined payment in his letter addressed to the Division Chairman dated February 14, 1955, contending that Employe Prescott was not entitled to payment as he ". . . was not assigned to any particular position at the time."
1955 to Mr. H. V. Gilligan, General Chairman. There has been no agreement between the parties to extend the 9 month period. If the employes wished to progress this claim they were, therefore, obligated to file their ex parts submission with your Board on or before March 6, 1956. It is the Carrier's position that unless the employes filed their ex parts submission with your Honorable Board on or before March 6, 1956, this claim is barred.
Section 1 of Article II-HOLIDAYS-of the Agreement of August 21, 1954, reads in part:
According to the above quoted section the first requisite that an employe must meet, in order to be entitled to holiday pay, is to be regularly assigned as of the holiday. Claimant Prescott was not regularly assigned as of the holiday, May 31, 1954. From the date of his employment on May 13, 1954 up to the holiday he had performed service on three different positions, each of which was a temporary vacancy of less than 30 days. Except for the service which he performed on May 13 and on May 14, all service which he performed prior to May 31 was as a vacation relief employe on a position regularly assigned to another employe. Neither of the temporary positions which he filled had been bulletined. Employe Lundstrom, by reason of being regularly assigned to Position 498, even though temporarily filling another position to which he was not regularly assigned as of the holiday, received holiday pay for the holiday, May 31, 1954. Under no circumstances can the Carrier agree that it would be possible for two employes to be regularly assigned to the same position as of the same date sufficient to meet the provisions of Section 1 of Article II of the Agreement of August 21, 1954.
It is the Carrier's position that Claimant Prescott, as of the holiday, May 31, 1954, was not a regularly assigned employe and therefore did not qualify for holiday pay on that day. We respectfully request that the claim be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: At the time of the holiday involved herein, May 31, 1954, Claimant was not a regularly assigned employe. It is well established that only regularly assigned employes are covered by Section 1, Article II of the August 21, 1954, National Agreement. See Award 7979. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.
FINDING: 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