Operator, Statesboro, Georgia, April 26, 1960 (Southern Memorial Dayholiday).
2. The Carrier shall because of the violation set out in part 1 hereof, compensate H. L. March, Agent-Operator, Statesboro, Georgia, for 8 hours at the time and one-half rate.
1. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the parties hereto when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate the occupants of regularly assigned positions on April 26, 1960, a holiday.
2. Claimants, hereinafter set forth, shall be paid 8 hours at time and onehalf for holiday in addition to 8 hours at pro rata rate already paid.
1. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the parties hereto when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate the occupants of regularly assigned positions as hereinafter set forth for July 4, 1960, a holiday.
2. The Carrier shall pay the following claimants eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate for the holiday in addition to eight (8) hours pre rats already paid to them:
1. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the parties hereto when it failed and refused to properly compensate the occupants of regularly assigned positions as hereinafter set forth for July 4, 1960, a holiday.
2. The Carrier shall pay the following claimants eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate for the holiday in addition to the eight (8) hours pro rata rate already paid to them:
1. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the parties hereto when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate vacation relief Agent-Operator H. K. Wood, regularly assigned to vacation relief position No. 1, while relieving the regularly assigned agent for July 4, 1960, a holiday.
2. Carrier shall be required to compensate 11. K. Wood for five (5) additional hours at the time and one-half rate of pay applicable to the agentoperator'e position at Dawson, Georgia.
1. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the parties hereto when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate the occupants of regularly assigned positions as hereinafter set forth, for July 4, 1960, a holiday.
2. Carrier shall pay the following claimants eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate for the holiday in addition to the eight (8) hours pro rata rate already paid to them:
1. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the parties hereto when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate the occupants of regularly assigned positions as hereinafter set forth, for July 4, 1960, a holiday.
2. The Carrier shall pay the following claimants eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate for the holiday in addition to the eight (8) hours pro rata rate already paid to them:
1. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the parties hereto when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate the occupants of regularly assigned positions as hereinafter set forth, for July 4, 1960, a holiday.
2. The Carrier shall pay the following claimants eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate for the holiday in addition to the eight (8) hours pro rata already paid to them:
1. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the parties hereto when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate the occupants of regularly assigned positions as hereinafter set forth, for September 5, 1960, a holiday. 13259-4 431.
2. The Carrier shall pay the following claimants eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate for the holiday in addition to the eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate already paid to them:
1. The Carrier violated the terms of an agreement between the parties hereto when it failed and/or refused to properly compensate the occupants of regularly assigned positions as hereinafter set forth, for September 5, 1960, a holiday.
2. The Carrier shall pay the following claimants eight (8) hours at the time and one-half rate for the holiday in addition to the eight (8) hours pro rata already paid to them:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an Agreement by and between the parties to this dispute effective October 31, 1959, and as otherwise amended.
At Page 45 through to the middle of Page 50 of said Agreement are listed the positions, the regular occupants of which are the claimants involved in these disputes.
On April 19, 1960, Superintendent E. D. Glenn issued the following circular (No. 60-75) addressed to all Agents under his jurisdiction:
The Board having heretofore recognized the limitations placed upon it by law, and that it does not have authority to grant new rules, and will therefore not attempt to further restrict Carrier's rights, there is ample reason for a denial award. This is purely an all-to-gain-and-nothing-to-lose proposition by the Employes.
The Carrier has proven to your Honorable Board that this claim should be declined for the following reasons:
1. Rule 4 (f) does not state, nor was it ever intended, to require the Carrier to work all employes on all holidays. Or, if the Carrier does not require them to work on all holidays, to pay them 8 hours at time and one-half rate of pay for doing absolutely nothing. Rule 7, Part 1-Holiday Work, is the rule setting up penalty pay when the Carrier requires these employes to work on holidays.
Rule 5 (d) of the Overtime Rule is not in point because no overtime was absorbed. How could it be . . . there was no work to be performed on the holidays. This old "absorption of overtime" rule has been in effect for more than 40 years, and has never been interpreted as the Employes are now contending.
Rule 18 (f) is likewise ancient with age, and it has never been construed as the Employes are now urging. That rule does not apply to a situation such as is here involved, and the truth of the matter is that whenever a position has. been re-established where one formerly existed, the rate of pay and hours of service have always been renegotiated. Rule 18 (f) has no bearing on this dispute.
2. In fact, no rule, interpretation or practice has been violated. This claim is in reality a demand for your Honorable Board to write the Employes a new rule. The Board knows that it lacks authority to negotiate for the parties, and' it has consistently so held.
3. This claim is not supported by the Agreement here in evidence, and a denial award is clearly proper.
OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioner has presented eleven (11) practically identical claims for a number of designated employes wherein Petitioner has contended that the Carrier violated the terms of the effective Agreement between the parties when it failed or refused to permit these employes to work on holidays occurring during their regular work week on their regularly assigned positions in compliance with the guaranty rule, Rule 4 (f), of the Agreement; that they were deprived of the right to work as guaranteed them and by reason of Carrier's conduct in this regard they should be compensated for eight (8) hours time at time and one-half pay for each of these holidays in accordance with Rule 7 of the Agreement. 13259-4s 475
It is Carrier's position that Carrier had the right to blank these positions on all of the holidays named in the claims and that all of the employes involved were paid 8 hours pro rata pay for these holidays, even though they performed no work on these holidays, in compliance with the Agreement.
That the Carrier has a right to blank holidays without being in violation of the Agreement has been recognized and upheld in many previous awards of this Board.
It has been uniformly held that the guarantee, under rules very similar to Rule 4 (f) of this Agreement, runs to the employe and not to the position; Rule 4 (f) does not guarantee that employes will work on holidays. It is only when an employe works on a holiday that he is entitled to and receives time and a half pay and this under the terms of Rule 7-Part 1 of this Agreement.
All the Claimants herein having been fully compensated on the holidays involved in the claims for eight (8) hours at the pro rata rate, the holidays occurring during their work week, and further compensation for time not worked on these holidays, for the foregoing reasons, must be denied.
See Award No. 2325 (Second Division)-Carter; Award No. 8539-Coburn; Award 10166-Gray; Award 10594-Hall.
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