STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes that,
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Under date of December 2, 1955, Mr. N. S. Smith, Terminal Trainmaster, Savannah, Georgia Yard Office, advertised bid for assignments of vacation preferences from the employes in Savannah, Georgia Yard Office and copy of this letter is hereto attached and identified as Employes' Exhibit No. 1.
A schedule of vacations was worked out between Mr. Smith and Mr. J. R. Gooding, Local Chairman, at that point and copy of this schedule which is selfexplanatory is hereby attached and identified as Employes' Exhibit No. 2.
Pursuant to the above vacation schedule, under date of February 9, 1956, Mr. Smith advertised position of vacation relief work as per copy of his letter which is self-explanatory and is hereto attached and identified as Employes' Exhibit No. 3. Mr. J. C. Smith, Savannah Yard Clerk was assigned to position of vacation relief clerk as advertised in this bulletin. Everything went well and Clerk R. A. Pomykala through L. C. Gooding listed as Items 1 through 5 in Employes' Exhibit No. 2 were granted their vacations in accordance with the arranged schedule which was properly arrived at by agreement between Mr. N. S. Smith, Terminal Trainmaster, and Mr. J. R. Gooding, Local Chairman. However, at 6:00 P. M. on Sunday, April 29, 1956, there was a walk-out
Under all of the facts in this case, it is crystal clear that there has been no violation of the effective Agreement, and that the Carrier showed good faith by asking the Claimant to choose another vacation period at a later date after things eased up. Claimant steadfastly refused to select another vacation period as we certainly wanted him to receive a vacation. Particularly so in view of the extremely heavy load he had been carrying.
Carrier has shown good faith in its dealings with Claimant Stafford. Mr. Stafford had performed good work for the company, and has been with the Carrier since October 2, 1920. His capabilities were recognized when he was appointed Chief Clerk at Savannah Yard. We have a high regard for Mr. Stafford but we do not feel that there has been any violation whatsoever of the Clerks' Agreement and respectfully urge that this claim be denied. We earnestly and sincerely feel that if there ever was an emergency then certainly we had one in this case.
The claim here before the Board has heen shown beyond any reasonable doubt to be wholly without merit. It should be denied in its entirety as there is nothing in the National Vacation Agreement (part and parcel of the Clerks' Agreement) nor any other rules, practices or interpretations to substantiate the payment demanded by the Employes.
All facts submitted in support of Carrier's position in this case have been presented orally or by correspondence to the Employes or duly authorized representative thereof, and made a part of this dispute.
Carrier, not having seen the Brotherhood's submission in this dispute, reserves the right to present such additional evidence and argument as it deems necessary.
OPINION Or BOARD: Claimant was slated to go on this three week vacation May 7 through May 25, 1956 as per the schedule that had been worked out by him and the Local Chairman in December of 1955, and which schedule was approved by Terminal Trainmaster Smith.
On April 30, 1956 at 1:45 A. M. the M. D. & S. employes went out on strike and the freight traffic of the Macon, Dublin and Savannah was diverted to the Central of Georgia at Savannah. The strike lasted until June 25, 1956.
On May 5, 1956 Mr. Stafford called Mr. Smith and asked him if he would be needed to work and Mr. Smith said "yes" to report back Monday, May 7, 1956.
The Carrier later offered Mr. Stafford an opportunity to set another date for his vacation but Mr. Stafford refused to select another date.
Petitioner's admit that there was an increase in traffic due to the strike. The increase in traffic due to the strike on the M. D. & S. was an emergency and the Carrier did not violated Article 5. See Award 9228. 9769-13 '? i 1