CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
Further with respect to the employes' contention in this dispute that utilization by the Carrier of a vacation relief worker to provide vacation relief on the two positions in question was in violation of rules of the currently effective Schedule Agreement between the parties dated September 1, 1949, while not particularly relevant to the instant case, we wish to point out to your Board an understanding had with the General Chairman of the Clerks' Organization on this property since April 4, 1955, an understanding which operates in conjunction with Article 12 of the National Vacation Agreement and which continues in existence to the effect that if an employe is hired for the purpose of providing relief during vacation periods, even though he does not perform relief on the position of the employe or employes actually on vacation, but instead, fills the position of one or more other employes who fill positions of employes while absent on vacation, the employe hired is to be considered the vacation relief employe. We firmly believe that such understanding will clearly dispel any semblance of doubt over the fact that both parties have recognized Article 12 (b) of the National Vacation Agreement as being the controlling agreement provision and have agreed thereon.
The Carrier respectfully submits the instant contention and claim to be devoid of merit and requests that it be denied in its entirety.
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier maintained three clerical positions at Madison, South Dakota. In the summer of 1955, the clerks were scheduled the following vacation periods:
Carrier employed, R. J. Palmer, a school teacher, as a regular relief employe to fill the positions of the above employes during their vacation absence.
Petitioner contends that Claimant who had seniority and was unemployed should have been assigned to fill the vacation absences under Article 12 (b) of the National Vacation Agreement which reads:
The record shows that Claimant requested and was granted a leave of absence for 60 days effective January 3, 1956; that he requested and was granted a 30-day extension which expired April 3, 1956; that he did not report 11602-10 261
for duty on April 3, 1956, nor at any time thereafter. Carrier contends that Claimant had been notified that his seniority rights had terminated because he failed to return to work and was absent without leave. Petitioner contends that Claimant's seniority rights were not terminated because Carrier failed to notify Petitioner of any leave of absence granted to Claimant as required by Rule 23 and that Carrier carried Claimant on the seniority roster up to the time the claim was presented. Carrier replied that Claimant was on the seniority roster in error.
Whether or not Claimant retained his seniority rights is immaterial. His extended leave of absence expired April 3, 1956. He did not report for work. He made no effort to report at any time in the interim. If he retained his seniority by reason of his leave of absence, he was then either still on leave or absent without leave, but unavailable for work. In either case Carrier was not obliged "to observe the principle of seniority" required in Article 12(b) of the National Vacation Agreement. In the absence of an available senior employe, Carrier had the right to employe R. J. Palmer as a regular relief employe.
There is also evidence in the record that R. J. Palmer had been hired as. a vacation relief employe in previous years.
On the basis of the record, we conclude that there is no basis for the claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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