THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
(Eastern Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (G'L-6078) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Claimants named in "Item (b)" in Statement of Claim are all employes of the Carrier, coming within the full coverage of the current Clerks' Agreement and on the day in question, all were regularly assigned in the Timekeeping Department in the Superintendent's office at Newton, Kansas. All have a work week of Monday thru Friday, with Saturday and Sunday assigned rest days which are not included as a part of a regular relief assignment. All of the Claimants in their work week preceding the May 30, Memorial Day Holiday, had worked the five days of their work week, and all were required by the Carrier to perform service on their assignments on their rest day, Saturday, May 30, 1964, which was also a legal holiday under the provisions of Rule 33-A of the current Clerks' Agreement. Each of the above named Claimants performed a full eight (8) hour tour of duty on that date.
Claimants were only compensated for eight (8) hours at the rate of time and one-half for services performed on the May 30 date in question, and in accordance with the General Manager's statement in his letter of September 11, 1964, (See Employes Exhibit R), this compensation was allowed for services performed on a rest day, under the provisions of Rules 32-F and 32-1 of the current Clerks' Agreement. However, Claimants were not compensated for the eight (8) hours service performed on the recognized legal holiday as required under the provisions of Rule 33-A, which provides for the payment of time and one-half for work performed on such days.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimants held regular assignments covered by the Clerks' Working Agreement and were assigned positions to work Monday through Friday with rest days of Saturday and Sunday. The Claim ants were called, by the Carrier, to perform work on their Saturday rest day which day was also a recognized holiday, to wit, Memorial Day. For their services on the claim day involved, the Claimants received payment at time and one-half rate. The Claimants now claim additional compensation for performing services on their rest day which also happened to fall on a recognized holiday . This claim for additional compensation was denied by the Carrier. The Carrier does not deny that the time worked on Memorial Day (May 30th) by each of the Claimants, is correct.
The following rules of the Agreement between the parties are to be considered in the present controversy:
32-F. Service rendered by employes on their assigned rest days shall be paid for under Rule 32-1, unless relieving an employe assigned to work on such day, in which case they will be paid the same as such assigned employe would be paid, subject to the provisions of Rule 37, unless the employe working such day shall have rendered service on five previous days in his work week, in which event he shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half.
32-I. Except as provided in Rule 32-J employes notified or called to perform work not continuous with, before, or after the regular work period shall be allowed a minimum of three (3) hours for two (2) hours work or less and if held on duty in excess of two (2) hours, time and one-half time will be allowed on the minute basis. (Rule 32-J is not applicable to the issue in this dispute.)
33 _9. Work performed on the following legal holidays-namely, New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas (provided when any of the above holidays fall on Sunday, the day observed by the State, Nation, or by proclamation shall be considered the holiday) shall be paid for under Rule 32-L"
The Carrier refused payment on the ground that the Claimants had already been paid for the services they rendered in accordance with its understanding of the Agreement between the parties.
The issue to be determined by this Board is whether these 'Claimants are entitled to receive the payments claimed for the work and/or services they performed on their rest day which happened to fall on a recognized holiday pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of THEIR agreement with the Carrier, as hereinabove set forth.
The Agreement between the parties with reference to the payment for services rendered on an assigned rest day, by an employe, is covered by Rule 32-F-Work on Rest Days. That part of the rule that concerns us reads as follows:
It is evident from a reading of Rules 32-F and 32-I, that all that Rule 32-I does is to set forth the rate of pay and/or allowance that an employe shall receive if he performs services on the respective periods or days listed in the rule. It is also clear from a reading of both riles that it was intended by the parties that when an employe rendered service on an assigned rest day that such employe " * * * shall be allowed a minimum of three (3) hours for two (2) hours work or less and if held on duty in excess of two (2) hours, time and one-half will be allowed on the minute basis." We are not concerned with the other provisions of Rule 32-I, as they do not apply to the matter before us.
An examination of the record, in this dispute, discloses that the Claimants, when this dispute was being handled on the property and in their Ex Parte Submission, to this Board, claim a violation of Rule 33-A.
That the Carrier recognizes that there are two separate and distinct rules involved in this dispute, is evident from its letter of denial of this claim dated November 10, 1964, over the signature of Mr. 0. M. Ramsey, the Assistant to the Vice-President of the Carrier, wherein, among other things, he states:
This Board has consistently held by a long line of awards that the function of the Board is limited to the interpretation and application of agreements as agreed upon between the parties. We are without authority to add to, take from, write or rewrite rules or agreements for the parties, nor may we change the terms of the Agreement which has been entered into, even though the terms may be harsh, inequitable and unreasonable. The terms of the Agreement, however onerous they may be, must be enforced if such is the meaning of the language used.
Under the specific terms of the Agreement, the Carrier agreed and bound itself to pay compensation under two separate rules, to wit, Rule 32-F and Rule 33-A.
We will follow the prior awards and hold that the Carrier has an obligation to pay for services performed on a rest day which falls on a recognized holiday under two separate rules.
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