THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute results from the parties being unable to agree on one material fact. Did illness of other employes create an emergency condition necessitating the Carrier's deferment of the beginning date of the Claimant's vacation? The Carrier contends such an emergency did exist and the Organization does not agree. In our opinion, the record adequately supports a finding that illness of other employes created emergency conditions requiring the Carrier to delay the Claimant's vacation for two days until a replacement could be secured.
The Claimant's vacation was to begin on December 1, 1955. On November 28, 1955 he was advised that he could not be relieved until December 5. He worked December 1 and 2, December 3 and 4 being off days. He commenced his vacation on December 5, totaling 3 weeks vacation. The Organization contends he should be paid time and one-half in addition to his regular pay, for work performed on December 1 and 2 for the reason that, under the Vacation Agreement an employe's vacation shall not be deferred unless he has received 10 days notice. The Claimant did not receive 10 days notice in this controversy. The Agreement also provides that when emergency conditions prevent 10 days' notice need not be given. The Carrier asserts it could not give 10 days' notice because illness of other employes prevented such action, and that it relieved the Clamiant for his vacation just as soon as it could.
The Board has held in many cases that illness may create an emergency. The record discloses that the extra operator scheduled to relieve Claimant was diverted to another assignment because another extra operator was laid off sick prior to November 28, the date the Claimant was advised his vacation would be deferred. The illness was an emergency not contemplated by the Carrier, and it did not violate the Agreement when it delayed for 2 days the beginning of the Claimant's, vacation.
FINDINGS: 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