STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Employees Union on the Reading Company, that:
The dispute in this claim is predicated upon provisions of an Agreement between the Reading Company, hereinafter referred to as Carrier, and the Transportation-Communication Employees Union, hereinafter referred to as Employees and/or Union, as amended and supplemented, dated April 1, 1946--corrected September 1, 1951-and by this reference is made available to your Board.
The dispute was handled on the property in the usual manner, with conference, up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle claims and grievances, and was denied.
Dispute arose when Carrier refused to pay Claimant a day's pay for November 24, 1966 (Thanksgiving Day) as provided in the Holiday Agreement.
Claimant E. B. Layton, Extra Towerman at "FS" Tower, third shift, bid on position of ticket and freight agency at Hopewell, New Jersey, and
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Prior to November 17 1966, the Claimant E. B. Layton, was an extra employee assigned to "FS" Tower. On November 17 1966 the Claimant was awarded a regular assignment at Oarrier's Hopewell Agency . The Claimant was awarded this position pursuant to Bulletin P-79. The regular assignment involved required a period of "posting" by Claimant in order to become qualified in the performance of the work of the position. In this instance, the Claimant's qualification was confirmed on November 25, 1966.
On November 23, 1966, the day prior to the claimed holiday of November 24, 1966, the Claimant voluntarily laid off and hence did not report for work. There was no compensation accorded to the Claimant for November 23, 1966. Similarly, the Claimant voluntarily laid off on November 24, 1966. In view of these facts, the Carrier did not grant the Claimant a day's holiday pay for November 24, 1966.
The Agreement between Reading Company and the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, effective April 1, 1946, corrected September 1, 1951, is on file with Your Board and is incorporated herein by reference.
OPINION OF BOARD: On November 17, 1966, Claimant was awarded a regular assignment on position of agent Hopewell, New Jersey. Prior thereto he was an extra employe. He was not qualified to assume the full responsibility for his assignment immediately. Therefore, he was required to spend a few days "posting" or learning the details of his new job. He was not paid for this time.
Claimant actually began working his new position, under pay, on No vember 25, 1966, the day following the Thanksgiving Day holiday. He claimed holiday pay of eight hours, under provisions of Article III, Agreement of August 19, 1960, contending that he was an extra employe on the holiday and, as such, had qualified for the payment claimed.
Carrier declined the claim on the ground that Claimant was a regular assigned employe and, as such, did not qualify for the payment claimed because he had no compensation credited to the day preceding the holiday.
The record shows that the parties have no disagreement about the intent of the agreement provisions involved. Their dispute centers around the status of the Claimant or, more exactly, the question of when did the Claimant cease to be an "extra employe" and become a "regularly assigned employe". This question has to be resolved in order to know which qualifications must be met in order to be entitled to the holiday pay.
We have carefully considered the rather inadequate record, and must conclude that it convinces us that for these parties an "extra" employe who is the successful bidder on a permanent or "regular" assignment becomes a "regularly assigned employe" on the date he is officially awarded the assignment. This seems to be the only conclusion that can be considered compatible with the real contentions of both parties. For example, they are in accord that such an employe should not be disturbed while engaged in "posting" on the position he has bid in. This is inconsistent with the Organization's contention that such an employe remains an "extra". Extra employes have rights that could not be observed without "disturbing" them from "posting". On the other hand, this accord is consistent with Carrier's position that an employe in this situation is a "regularly assigned employe".
Regularly assigned employes are, of course, subject to any and all rules that apply to such employes. This includes the qualifying provisions of Section 3 of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, as amended by Article III of the August 19, 1960 Agreement.
Consistent with this Opinion, Claimant Layton became a "regularly assigned employe" when he was awarded the regular assignment on November 17, 1966. And since the record does not show that compensation was credited to him on the day preceding the holiday, he is not entitled to the payment claimed. See Award 11642.
Obviously, the conclusions announced in this Opinion are confined to the circumstances of this particular case, and are not intended as a general ruL ing on the point involved. Particular circumstances must be considered in all such cases.
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 Tune 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and