STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Employees Union on the Long Island Railroad,that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Agreement between the parties dated July 25, 1961, as amended and supplemented, is available to your Board and by this reference is made a part hereof.
This claim was timely presented, progressed, including conference with the highest designated officer of the Carrier and has been declined. Employees therefore appeal to your Honorable Board for adjudication.
Correspondence reflecting the handling on the property is included in TCU Exhibits 1 through 7.
Mr. D. Matzen's status at the time this claim arose was that of an extra (unassigned) block operator, and under paragraph (j) of Rule 56, his work week began on Monday, December 20, 1965. During that week he worked as follows:
Thus at 3 p.m., Friday, December 24, 1965, he had worked 40 hours, (5 days) in his work week. For service performed on Saturday, which was
Under the terms of the controlling agreement the claim was discussed in conference with the Director of Personnel and the General Chairman. The claim was denied by the Director of Personnel on April 22, 1966. A copy of this denial is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked "Carrier's Exhibit D."
The claim was again listed for discussion with the Director of Personnel on July 28, 1966, and on August 16, 1966, the Director of Personnel reiterated his position as in letter of April 22, 1966. Copies of these letters are attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked "Carrier's Exhibit E" and "Carrier's Exhibit F."
OPINION OF BOARD: At the time this claim arose, Claimant held status of an extra (unassigned) block operator, and under paragraph (j) of Rule 56, his work week began on Monday, December 20, 1965. During that week he worked seven successive days, eight hours per day, Monday through Sunday, including Christmas Day, Saturday, December 25, 1965, one of the recognized Agreement holidays.
For service performed on Saturday Claimant was paid at the rate of one and one-half times the straight time rate of the position worked.
Claimant seeks payment of an additional amount of eight hours at time and one-half rate for Saturday, December 25, 1965, contending that although he was properly paid for working on a rest day, persuant to Rule ;0, he was improperly denied additional 8 hours' payment for working on an agreed upon holiday as required by Rule 34.
Carrier denies violation, citing Rule 30, Paragraph (d) of the schedule Agreement:
We find that Carrier's reliance on Rule 30(d) is mistaken. The subject situation does not involve a claim for overtime on overtime. We are dealing here with separate benefits, one for overtime work on a sixth day of work, the other payment for work done on one of the designated holidays. Both benefits are applicable hereto, notwithstanding the fortuity that both conditions coincided on the same day. Awards 10541, 12471, 16605, 16801, 16982,17087.