BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAM
SHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYEES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6564) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: C. E. Flensburg is employed as a Ticket Clerk in the Passenger Station at Hornell, N.Y. His 1966 vacation period was scheduled as follows:
On October 10, 1966, seven (7) days prior to the date he was scheduled to start his vacation, Agent Delaney informed him it would be necessary to work his vacation period because no extra employes were available.
Mr. Flansburg time-slipped the Carrier for time and one-half and on October 18, 1968, Agent M. W. Delaney advised him as follows:
Claim was filed by the Local Chairman on October 28, 1966, denied by Agent on November 4, 1966.
Claim was appealed by the Division Chairman to the Superintendent on November 11, 1966. Under date of December 14, 1966, Superintendent Canfield furnished the Division Chairman with copy of letter dated December 12, 1966 addressed to the Carrier by the claimant withdrawing the claim. (Employes' Exhibit A). As Mr. Flansburg had filed his claim with the Organization requesting that it be progressed to a conclusion, the Division
On !March 20, 1968, the General Chairman wrote this office alleging and furnishing copies of correspondence (Carrier's Exhibit C-1, 2 and 3) that claimant was not notified on October 10, or 7 days prior to his vacation, that it would be deferred. And, on March 27, 1968, Carrier replied as follows:
No reply was received from the General Chairman, and on December 6, 1968, Carrier was advised by International President Dennis that the case was being submitted to this Board for adjudication.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimants vacation in the year 1966 was scheduled as follows:
On October 10, 1966, he was informed by his supervisor that it would be necessary for him to work during that portion of his vacation scheduled for Oct. 17 to 21, incl., due to no relief being available. Because of not receiving ten days' notice of deferment claim was submitted based on violation of the Vacation Agreement it being contended that no emergency existed and that Carrier had more than ample time to provide for replacement or proper advance notice of the necessity of deferment.
Carrier, in the handling on the property, contended that Claimant knew prior to Oct. 10 of efforts that were being made to provide replacement and that he would have to defer his vacation, although formal advice was not given until October 10. The record of handling on the property does not contain any information to show that any emergency situation developed resulting in it being necessary to defer Claimant's vacation. Before the
Board the Carrier asserts that there was but one employs qualified to relieve Claimant and that it had been planned to use such individual but due to a special shipment from a publishing company it was not possible to make such arrangements. There is no record of such contention being advanced on the property and its injection before the Board is too late for consideration.
In view of the foregoing we find that the Carrier violated the Agreement. However, since Claimant took his vacation at a later period in the year we will follow the line of awards that hold Claimant is only entitled to the difference between the straight time rate and the time and one-half rate for the five days of his originally scheduled vacation period. See Awards 15524,15701,15707,16355,16748 and 17148.
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 jurisdicion over the dispute involved herein; and