THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Lehigh Valley Railroad, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in full force and effect various collective bargaining agreements between the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, hereinafter called Carrier or Management, and The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, hereinafter called Employes or Telegraphers. Such agreements are on file with this Division and by reference are made a part of this submission as though set out herein word for word.
This dispute was handled in the usual manner through the highest officer designated by the carrier to handle such disputes and failed of adjustment. The dispute involves interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and is, under the Railway Labor Act, as amended, submitted to this Division for award, the Board having jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
The dispute submitted herein involves interpretation of Article II (Holidays), August 21, 1954 Agreement. The two pertinent sections are Section 1, reading as follows:
It is obvious therefore, that claimant did not qualify for the holiday pay as required by the rule in this case and, accordingly, such claim was denied on the property.
It was the contention of the Organization in this case as discussed on the property that if compensation paid by the Carrier is credited to the work days of a regularly assigned hourly or daily rated employe's position immediately preceding and following one of the specified holidays, then the regularly assigned employe is entitled to the holiday pay as outlined in Article II, Section 1, even though on one or both the qualifying days the regularly assigned employe is voluntarily absent from work with no compensation due him and his position is filled by an extra or relief emmploye. It is elementary that if the employe regularly assigned hourly or daily rated referred to in Article II, Sections 1 and 3 of the August 21, 1954 agreement is voluntarily absent on a work day of his position, he is not entitled to have compensation credited for such a day of absence. There is no dispute between the parties the claimant in this case was voluntarily absent without compensation December 28, 1956. That day was the work day of claimant's position immediately following Christmas Day, 1956. As he had no compensation credited to him for that day, he did not qualify for the holiday pay claimed in this case.
The article involved is not difficult to interpret. As a matter of fact, the language is quite simple-to the effect that in order to qualify for the claimed holiday pay, the employe must have compensation credited to him for the work day preceding the holiday, as well as the first work day following such holiday. In the instant case that was December 28, 1956, and claimant did not work on that day nor was any compensation credited to him for that day.
The facts presented in this submission were made a matter of discussion with the Committee in conference on the property.
OPINION OF BOARD: The record in this case contains a stipulation of the facts.
The issue is interpretation and application of ARTICLE II-HOLIDAYS -Sections 1 and 3 of the National Agreement dated August 21, 1954, which read:
Claimant is a regularly assigned hourly rated employe. He occupied a position the workdays of which were Friday through Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays being the rest days. Christmas Day, December 25, 1956, fell on a Tuesday-the last day of Claimant's workweek. He worked that holiday, for which he was paid time and one-half. He worked the day preceding the holiday. He did not work the first workday, December 28, following his rest days. The position was filled on December 28 by an extra man. Claimant was not paid holiday pay for December 25.
Petitioner contends that since Claimant worked the day preceding the holiday and compensation was paid to the extra man on Claimant's first workday following his rest days, Claimant qualified for holiday pay.
Carrier contends that inasmuch as Claimant failed to work on his regularly scheduled first workday following his rest days, he did not satisfy the conditions, which are prescribed in ARTICLE II, Section 3, to qualify for holiday pay.
The August 21, 1954 Agreement flowed from the Report to the President by Emergency Board No. 106, dated May 15, 1954. At page 41 of the Report, in its discussion, the Board said:
Then, on pages 54 and 55 of the Report the Board made the following recommendation:
Petitioner points to the difference of language in the Emergency Board's recommendation (Issue 12 (c)) and ARTICLE II, Section 3, of the August 21, 1954 Agreement. It emphasizes the first sentence of Section 3 and urges it must be interpreted to mean that "if compensation paid by the Carrier is credited to the workdays immediately preceding and following" a holidaythen-the regularly assigned employe qualifies for holiday pay notwithstanding that he did not work on either or both of those days.
We are of the opinion that ARTICLE II, Sections 1 and 3 of the August 21, 1954 Agreement must be read as a whole and in the light of the discussion and recommendation of the Emergency Board which reveals the objective sought to be attained and its qualifications.
It is especially revealing that the Emergency Board's recommendation is equated "to practice in other industries." It is common knowledge that "in other industries," in order to discourage absenteeism, an employe must work his assigned workdays immediately preceding and following a holiday to qualify for holiday pay.
If we were to interpret ARTICLE II, Section 3, as urged by Petitioner the second and third sentences of the Section would be surplusage. We cannot ascribe such a meaningless action to the parties. 11642-14 663
We hold that to qualify for holiday pay, as provided for in ARTICLE II, Section 3, of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, an employe must have compensation credited to him for the workdays immediately preceding and following the holiday. Since Claimant did not have compensation credited to his workday immediately following the holiday, we will deny the Claim.
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 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