(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 C. L. Everson at time and onehalf for service performed on April 18, 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 furnishing relief. Such assigned rest days shall be consecutive 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 :n 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 5) 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 the first rest day of his regular relief assignment No. 8.
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim is similar to the claims in Awards 18419 and 18420. Claimant herein was the regular incumbent of Relief Assignment No. 8 and on his rest day of that position, Friday, April 18, 1969, he performed the duties of Excepted Chief Dispatcher Posiiton No. 4, and is claiming that he should have been paid at the overtime rate of pay for said date in question rather than at the pro-rata rate of pay.
For the reasons stated in said Awards 18419 and 18420, we will remand this claim back to the property for further handling by the parties herein to determine whether or not the Organization's Exhibit TD-1 was placed in issue and handled on the property.