STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: When the 1955 vacation ached. ule for Clerical employes at Shreveport, Louisiana, was worked up Mr. V. E. Bindo selected the period of May 31 through June 11, 1955, for his 1955 vacation, and Mr. F. M. Gardner, Sr., selected the period of June 12 through June 30, 195'5, for his 1955 vacation, which was agreeable and was so designated on the 1955 vacation schedule.
They were not permitted to take their vacations as scheduled, but were notified by the Carrier that their vacations were being deferred without, at the time they were deferred, setting another agreeable date and, also, it is our understanding, while they were denied the privilege of taking their originally scheduled vacations, junior employes were permitted to take advantage of those dates and go on their vacations.
Under date of June 1, 1955, General Yardmaster J. E. Irvine gave Mr. F. M. Gardner, Sr., a letter which reads:
He did not set another date, or ask Mr. Gardner to select another date. As far as that letter went, dealing with the matter, Mr. Gardner's vacation was deferred for that year.
In the present case there remained three and one-half months in the year at the time the Carrier contacted the Local Chairman for the purpose of rescheduling the vacations. The Employes refused to cooperate in rescheduling the vacations, and the Carrier was forced to exercise that function, as it had right to do, since the employes did not have right to decline vacations. The senior employe (Gardner) was given vacation first, followed by the other employe.
Thus there was nothing arbitrary or capricious in the manner the vacations were allowed. There was good reason to defer them until relief could be furnished and to grant them at that time.
The Carrier respectfully submits that the facts show there was no violation of the rules, and that the claim is not supported by the rules and should be denied.
All data herein has been presented to the Emplcyes in correspondence or in conference.
OPINION OF BOARD: While each party contends that the other violated Article V, August 21, 1954 Agreement, we find no evidence thereof.
The issue involved in this case is the same as that presented to the Board and determined in Award 9769. The Award there is controlling in this case and therefore this claim is denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing theron, and 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