(a) The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the effective Schedule Agreement between the parties, Article III(a) paragraph 1, and Article III(c) thereof in particular in depriving Claimant D. Oelslager of service which he was entitled to perform on April 17, 1969, one of the individual Claimant's assigned rest days.
(b) Because of said violation the Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimant Oelslager one day's compensation at time and one-half rate.
Carter was paid at overtime rate of pay, inasmuch as he was used on his rest day, under Article III(b), the Service on Rest Days rule.
Claim was presented that the regularly assigned train dispatcher on position No. 3, Mr. Oelsdager, be paid one day at overtime rate due to being deprived of service on his rest day, on position No. 3. Contention was made by the Office Chairman the claim was supported by Articles 3(a) and (b) as well as Award No. 16836, covering a previous dispute occurring under the former agreement on one of the companies comprising the present merged company. On further appeal, the General Chairman contended the claim was also supported by Articles 3(a) and (c). This claim was progressed up to and including Carriers highest designated officer and was at all times declined.
Pertinent correspondence with regard to this claim is attached to this submission as Carrier's Exhibits "A" through "G," inclusive.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant was a regularly assigned train dispatcher, assigned to position No. 3, hours 12 Midnight to 8:00 A. M., with Thursday and Friday as assigned rest days. On Thursday, April 17, 1969, one of Claimant' rest days, there was no relief or extra dispatcher available to provide relief. The Carrier used a senior regularly assigned dispatcher, who was also on his rest day, to relieve Claimant. The Petitioner contends that in the absence of a relief or extra dispatcher, Claimant was entitled to be used on the date involved in preference to using another regularly assigned dispatcher.
The Carrier contends that the senior train dispatcher was used on his assigned rest day to relieve Claimant under the provisions of Articles IV (e) reading:
While there is no specific rule in the Agreement providing how rest day relief service is to be performed in the absence of a relief or extra train dispatcher, Article III, Sections (a) and (b) contemplate that a regularly assigned dispatcher may be required to work on his rest day. It has generally been held that in the absence of a relief or extra employe, the regular incumbent of a position is entitled to work his position on a rest day thereof. This principle is sound and there is no apparent reason why it should not apply herein. See Award 16836. The performance of work on a rest day of a position does not come under Article IV (e). The parties to the Agreement should be able to resolve qustions of this nature without resort to this Board, but their failure to do so requires that the dispute be adjusted by the Board. The 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;