THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
THE CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS PACIFIC
RAILWAY COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Claimants referred to in the Statement of Claim were regularly assigned to various hourly rated positions in the Maintenance of Way and Structures Department. On or about November 23, 1955 the Claimants were. notified that they were laid off, effective with the close of the work period on Wednesday, November 23, 1955. On or about November 26, 1955 each of the Claimants was notified to report for service on his respective position and gang at the beginning of the work period on Monday, November 28, 1955.
In complying with the Carrier's instructions, each of the Claimants received compensation credited by the Carrier to Wednesday, November 23, 1955, and to Monday, November 28, 1955.
In August of 1954 the parties consummated an agreement providing for eight hours' straight time pay for each of the seven designated holidays, which includes Thanksgiving Day, not worked. The Carrier has refused to allow
The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the Carrier did not violate the effective Agreements when it refused to allow eight hours' holiday pay for Thanksgiving Day, Thursday, November 24, 1955, to claimants and others who were cut off or laid off in a force reduction effective at quitting time on Wednesday, November 23, 1955, and that each employe. here claimant is not contractually entitled to receive pay for eight hours as claimed.
This conclusion is supported in principle by prior Board decisions. For example Second Division Award No. 2299, Referee Carter, involving claim on behalf of an unassigned man for holiday pay under a paid holiday rule identical in principle and written in almost the same language as the one here to be interpreted, denied the claim by holding that:
Also see Second Division Award No. 2300, Referee Carter, denying a similar claim because claimant was not, on the involved holiday, a regularly assigned employe, or the owner, on such holiday, of a regularly assigned position.
In addition to alleging violation of the paid holiday rule, the Brotherhood charged that Rule 44 was also violated. This rule simply provides that gangs will not be laid off for short periods when proper reduction of expense can be accomplished by first laying off junior men. It recognizes the Carrier's right to lay off employes for short periods, but there was no violation of this rule because the proper reduction of expenses could not be accomplished by first laying off junior men, thus necessitating cutting off the entire force.
Rule 49 is of significance in that it specifically states that no compensation will be allowed for work not performed. The claim which the Brotherhood is here attempting to assert is for work not performed.
Furthermore, Item 24 of the appendix, quoted above, recognizes management's unrestricted right to abolish positions or assignments at any time.
Claim not being supported by any provision contained within the four corners of the effective Agreements, and being unsupported by the principles of prior Board awards, should be denied.
Carrier, not having seen the Brotherhood's submission, reserves the right, after doing so, to make appropriate response thereto.
OPINION OF BOARD: On or about November 23, 1955, the Carrier notified the Claimants that they were laid off effective with the close of the work period on Wednesday, November 23, 1955. On or about November 26, 1955, the Claimants were notified to report for work in their respective positions and in their gang at the beginning of the work period on Monday, 10512-.11 7 65
November 28, 1955. The Claimants worked Monday, November 21, Tuesday, November 22 and Wednesday, November 23. They did not work the balance of that week, but returned to their regular assignments on Monday, November 28. The claim is for holiday pay for Thanksgiving Day on Thursday, November 24, 1955.
Both parties cited Sections 1 and 3 of Article II of the Chicago Agreement dated August 21, 1954 which read as follows:
In its essential aspects, this claim is not distinguishable from the claims which led to our Awards 10175 (Daly) and 10287 (Wilson). We see no reason for reaching a different conclusion.
Even though there may be equity in the Claimants' position, this Board has no power to change the Agreement which required the employes to receive compensation credit for November 25, 1955, the day immediately following the holiday. Since the Claimants failed to qualify for holiday pay, we hold that the claim is without merit.
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 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