- Award No. 17174

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION




PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,

FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION

EMPLOYES




STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6254) that:


(a) Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when it failed to properly compensate the following employes for work performed on their rest days, which were also holidays:


CLAIMANT CLAIM DATE
F. A. Collins, H. J. Duncan, W. A. Moses, N. E. February 22, 1965
 Maravich. K. J. Reaman
 F. A. Collins, Frederick Towal, A. McMullen, L. C. May 31, 1965
 Kellev..J. Dahlman

 E. E. Kramer, L. C. Kelley, R. Norberg, K. H. July 5, 1965
 Bradley, W. L. Baker
 A. McMullen, Joan Taylor, J. J. Fay, R. W. Moritz September 6, 1965
 F. Morrell, G. Moeller, T. Triumph (worked two November 25, 1965
 shifts), J. A. Sterling
 F. W. McGinnis, K. Cbristianson, Jos. Martello, December 25, 1965
 B. Tsl. Gueffier, L. C. Acree, H. C. Ridenhour, M. C.
 Wilson, Jr., J. G. Johnson

 At. 11. Wilson, Jr., J. J. Murphy, L. T. LaPlante, H. January 1, 1966
 C. Ridenhour, E. Putnam G. Krueger, W. Schroeder,
 H. Duncan, J. H. Wright, J. E. Courson

 R. A. Green, J. Kalinowski, J. D. Johnson February 22, 1966
 W. L. Baker, Joseph Kelley, L. N. Dye, J. T. Hutton, May 30, 1966
 A. lllcMullen, W. H. Stern, G. Best
 L. Lazuka, H. A. Rantz, G. Best, F. D. Baumer, C. L. July 4, 1966
 Roberts, J. P. Hale, N. F. Johnson, E. D. Poncet,
 Joseph Kelley

 F. D. Baumer September 5, 1966

3. that under the rules of contract interpretation followed by the Board, there can be no justification for this overtime on overtime claim.


CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: On each of the claim dates cited by the union, the claimants named were used to perform work. By "accident of the calendar," each of these days happened to be a scheduled rest day for the employee as well as a legal holiday. In each case, the employee was paid one overtime day.


The union filed a claim in each case for an additional overtime day. They argued that two separate penalty provisions applied to the same employment activity so the company should be penalized twice. The claim were, of course, declined by the company, appealed and discussed in conference, and ultimately submitted before the Board.


The agreements which are pertinent to this dispute are by this referenee made a part of the record.




On the dates set out in the claim, the employes were required tc work. These dates were simultaneously rest days and holidays for each of the Claimants. However, for working on such dates, each respective Claimant was only paid for eight hours at the time and one-half rate of his position.


The claim before us is for each of these Claimants to be awarde' an additional payment of eight hours at the time and one-half rate.


The issues involved in this dispute are the same as those involved in a long line of recent awards of this Board, such as Award -,Nos. 15985. 15800, 15754, 15660, 15553, 15531, 15450, 16291 and also Awards Nos. 15361. 15362 (Lynch) and 16361 (Devine) involving these same parties and the same Agreement.




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














Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of May 1969.

 Central Publishing Co., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.A.

 17174 4