(a) The St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company (hereinafter "the Carrier") violated the effective Agreement between the parties, Article III(a) thereof in particular, by its failure and declination to compensate Train Dispatcher L. H. Bauer at time and one-half for service performed on May 1, 1969.
(b) Carrier shall now additionally compensate Claimant Bauer for the difference between pro rata rate and time and one-half rate applicable to Chief Dispatcher position for rest day service performed on May 1, 1969.
1. Each regularly assigned train dispatcher will be entitled and required to take two regularly assigned days off per week as rest days, except when unavoidable emergency prevents fnrnish·ng relief. Such assigned rest days shall be consecutix a to the fullest extent possible. Non-consecutive rest days may be assigned only in instances where consecutive rest days would necessitate working any train dispatcher in excess of five days per week. Any regularly assigned train dispatcher, who is required to perform service on the rest days assigned to his position, will be paid at rate of time and one-half for service performed on either or both of such rest days.
The same Claimant is involved in this dispute as in Claims 1 and 2, above, and the only factual difference between this claim and Claim 2 is that overtime rate is also claimed on behalf of the Claimant for the second rest day instead of the first rest day of his regular relief assignment No. 2.
The Claimant in this dispute (and succeeding Claim 6) is the regular incumbent of Relief Assignment No. 8 and, as such, he performs rest day relief work each week as follows:
Beginning Saturday, April 12, 1969, the Claimant fulfilled his regular relief assignment for four consecutive days.
In this dispute the Claimant requested and was granted permission to fill a two-day vacancy Thursday and Friday, April 17 and 18, 1969 on Excepted Chief Dispatcher Position No. 4, but in order for the Claimant to make himself available for relief service on Excepted Chief Dispatcher Position No. 4 Thursday, April 17, it was necessary for him to absent himself from his regular relief assignment on Wednesday, April 16, 1969, and in so doing he did not perform relief service commencing 11:30 P. M. that day on Trick Train Dispatcher Position No. 32.
The General Chairman presented on behalf of Claimant monetary claim for overtime rate less straight time rate allowed predicated upon the theory that the service rendered by the Claimant on Excepted Chief Dispatcher Position No. 4 on Thursday, April 17, 1969 was one of the assigned rest days of his regular relief assignment No. 8 and compensable at the overtime rate.
This dispute involves the same Claimant as in Claim 4, and the only factual difference between the two claims is that this dispute involves claim for overtime rate on the second rather than the first rest day of his regular relief assignment No. 8.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is similar to the claim in Award No. 18419, the only difference being the date in question, in this instance May 1, 1969 rather than May 2, 1969.
In said Award No. 18419, we remanded the dispute back to the property for further handling by the parties concerning proof as to what was or was not raised on the property, since Carrier has challenged the Organization's "Exhibit TD-1" as having not been put in issue during the handling on the property.
Since said "Exhibit TD-1" is crucial to the determination of this dispute, we will remand this dispute back to the property for further handling by the parties herein in regard to establishing proof as to what was or was not contended or discussed or raised on the property.
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.
Claim remanded to the property for further handling in accord with the Opinion.