PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
 AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
 SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:



EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is an Agreement in effect between the parties, a copy of which is on file with this Honorable Board, and the same is made a part of this submission as though fully set forth herein.

 For the Board's ready reference, Article XI and Article XII (Addendum No. 3, Article III, Sections 1(c), 2(a)(2) and 2(a)(2) paragraph (i) are here quoted:

SICK LEAVE AND SUPPLEMENTAL

SICKNESS BENEFITS










and was paid therefor in accordance with Article VII of the Agreement, in addition to his vacation days listed in paragraph next above.


Claim was presented for one day's pay on December 26 and 27, 1968, in behalf of Claimant Connatser, under Article XI, "Sick Leave and Supplemental Sickness Benefits", when Mr. Connatser was ill. The claim was declined by the Superintendent.


Mr. Connatser received dual payments for vacation due him and for services performed for the period December 16 through 30, 1968, except for two days, December 26 and 27, 1968, when he was ill.


This claim was progressed up to and including Carrier's highest designated officer, who declined the claim after holding conference with the General Chairman. Pertinent exchange of correspondence regarding this claim is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibits A through G, inclusive.




OPINION OF BOARD: Article XI of the Agreement provides for sick leave pay and the applicable formulae for determining compensation as to source and amount and the number of days of an employe's entitlement within a calendar year.


Article XII of the Agreement-Vacations-incorporates therein, by reference, the National Vacations Agreement to which Petitioner is a party and Addendum No. 3-Vacations. Section 2(a) of Article III of the Addendum reads:


"(2) -When Vacations Are Not Afforded.



In the calendar year 1968, Claimant was contractually entitled to 20 earned vacation days. Pursuant to his request, granted, he commenced his vacation on July 1. On July 12, after having enjoyed only 9 work days of vacation, Carrier required him to return to work. Carrier failed to afford him his remaining 11 days of earned vacation during the calendar year.




18321 5

On January 3, 1969, the Chief Train Dispatcher addressed the following communication to Claimant:




It is the position of Petitioner that Carrier, by its refusal to compensate Claimant in the amount of sick leave pay as provided for in Article XI, violated the Agreement.


It is not disputed that Claimant had a bank of earned sick leave days earned as provided for in Article XI.


Carrier's defense is that for Claimant's 11 work days beginning December 16 through December 30, which included December 26 and 27, "he was carried on the payroll and paid for the remainder of his vacation"; and, therefore, was not entitled to sick leave pay as prayed for.


We find that de facto and de jure Claimant was not in a vacation status during the period December 16 through December 30. December 26 and 27 were regularly assigned work days of his work week. Therefore, since Carrier's arguments are premised on the existence of vacation status, its proffered defense is without merit. We will sustain the Claim.


This case is to be distinguished from one in which an employe claims sick leave pay for one of his de facto vacation days.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

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

That the Agreement was violated.






Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 4th day of December 1970.

 Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
 18321 6