1. Carrier violated the provisions of the Agreement when it denied Mr. Perez a vacation for the year of 1968. Under the terms of the National Vacation Agreement as amended by the August 21, 1954 and July 1, 1968 agreements, each employe shall be granted a vacation providing they meet the requirements of the necessary qualifying days.
2. Carrier further violated the agreement when, under date of November 29, 1968, mail notice #127 was sent to all offices and stations where Agents, Operators and Operator-Clerks are employed which reads in part:
3. Carrier again violated the agreement when proper payment for working his vacation was not allowed. Mr. Perez was required, by the Carrier, to work his vacation period during December 1968.
4. Carrier shall now compensate Mr. Perez the difference between the pro rata time allowed, and the punitive time that should have been allowed for the working of his vacation in December 1968.
1. Carrier violated the provisions of the agreement when it denied Mr. Zolinsky a vacation for the year 1968. Under the terms of the National Vacation Agreement as amended by the August 21, 1954
e. Carrier again violated the agreement when proper payment 'for working his vacation was not allowed. Mr. Zolinsky was required, by the Carrier, to work his vacation period during December 1968.
The dispute involved herein is predicated upon various provisions of the September 1, 1949 Agreement as amended and supplemented, is available to your Board, and by this reference is made a part hereof.
The dispute was handled in the usual manner on the property, including conference April 24, 1969, up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle claims and grievances, and remains unsettled.
This claim arose because Carrier did not grant Claimants a vacation in the year 1968, and in addition, compensated them at the pro rata rate for working their vacations.
Employes contend an effort way made by them to schedule the vacation assignments, that a list was issued and later a bulletin stating Carrier would assign specific dates to those listed, :a the convenience of the company.
What rate of compensation is due an employe who works his vacation period?
CLAIM NO. 1 Claimant Perez was a regular assigned Operator-Clerk at the Mount Vernon, New York Station and was carried on the New Haven Division roster. He did not request a specific vacation date, and was advised by Carrier that his vacation would be assigned at the Carrier's convenience. Mr. Perez was paid $435.84 in lieu of his vacation (pro rata rate). Claim is for the punitive rate which would be $622.60, or a difference of $186.76. Claimant qualified for and did work his vacation period of fifteen days.
a qualified relief and the requirements of the service. Accordingly, they were paid in lieu of vacation at the pro rata rate of pay.
Claims on behalf of the claimants were progressed through the prescribed channels on the property up to and including the highest Carrier officer designated to handle grievances.
OPINION OF BOARD: The issue in this dispute has been decided in favor of the Employes in Awards 17575, 17576, 17577, 17697 and 18029, involving these same parties; also in Award 18310. Accordingly, this claim will be sustained.
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