40- Win Award No. 18151
Docket No. C1r18439







PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP

CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND

STATION EMPLOYES




STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6667) that:




EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is between the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes as the representative of the class or craft of employes in which the Claimant in this case held a position and the former Pennsylvania Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Brotherhood and the Carrier respectively.


There was in effect a Rules Agreement, effective May 1, 1942, except as amended, reprinted as of September 1, 1965, covering Clerical, Other Office, Station and Storehouse Employes between the Carrier (the former Pennsylvania Railroad) and this Brotherhood which the Carrier has filed with the National Mediation Board in accordance with Section b, Third (e), of the Railway Labor Act, and also with the National Railroad Adjustment Board. This Rules Agreement will be considered a part of this Statement of Facts. Various Rules thereof may lie referred to herein from time to tine without quoting in full.


Effective February 1, 19118, the New York Central Company was merged into the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and a new Company resulted, now known as the Penn Central Company. A new Clerical Rules Agreement became effective on that date. This is indicated here as a matter of information only, as the present dispute originated prior to this date.

At a meeting on February 21, 1968, the General Chairman presented the claim to the Director, Labor Relations, the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes on the property. The Director denied the claim with his letter dated August 9, 1968, copy attached as Exhibit B.


Claim was rediscussed at special meeting on April 8 and 9, 1969, and by letter of April 24, 1969, the Director reaffirmed his denial.


Thus, so far as the Carrier is able to anticipate the basis of this- claim, the questions to be decided by your board are:





OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant's position in this claim is that Carrier violated Rules 4-A-1(c) and 4-A-2(a) of the Agreement when she worked on Saturday, February 22, 1li64, which day was a recognized holiday and was also her rest day, by failing to pay her a day's pay at time and one-half under each of said rules. Claimant was paid 8 hours' pay at the punitive rate and seeks an additional 8 hours' pay at the punitive rate for working said rest day and/or holiday.








Carrier relies on Rule 4-A-2(c) of the Agreement in relieving it of responsibility in regard to this claim, alleging that under the provisions of said Rule 4-A-2(c), the so called "shifting holiday" rule, the hours Claimant worked on Saturday, February 22, 1964, was rest day work but not holiday work, and thus there is no basis for the claim for an additional eight (8) hours' compensation at the time and one-half rate.





18151 3


This Board, in numerous past Awards, has held that the incumbent of a regular position is entitled to an additional time and one-half payment for the same eight (8) hours worked on a day which is his test day and an assigned holiday. However, we are confronted in this instance with a Rule in the Agreement that differs from the situation facing us herein and the Awards upholding the aforementioned decisions in regard to said rest day-holiday work.


Rule 4-A-2(c) in effect shifts a holiday falling on a regularly assigned employe's relief day to a lay following said relief day. So, in effect, Claimant in this instance did not work on Washington's Birthday, February 22, 1964, because of said Rule 4-A-2(c). Said holiday was shifted to the day following, in this instance to Sunday, February 23, 7964.


Therefore, inasmuch as Claimant did not work on the holiday, Washington's Birthday, February 22, 1964, and having been paid for working her rest day on said date, Saturday, February 22, 1964, we are compelled to deny the claim.


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 9th day of October, 1970.

Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
18151 4