BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY,
AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS,
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
1) Carrier violated the provisions of Memorandum of Agreement No. 2 at Savanna, Illinois when it deducted eight (8) hours sick pay leave allowed an employe on the first half of January 1970 paycheck from his second half of January 1970 paycheck.
Caller-Msgr Pos. 2514 - 11:45 P. M.17:45 A. M., Tuesday & Wednesday
Claimant Podolski did request, because of his alleged illness, eight hours' pay at the straight time rate applicable to Position 2503 for January 10, 1970, but it was declined (and properly so) on the basis that he had been compensated for his working day on January 10, 1970 and was entitled to nothing additional.
Attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit "A" is a copy of a latter dated April 24, 1970 written by Mr. L. W. Harrington, Vice President-Labor Relations, to Mr. H. C. Hopper, General Chairman of the Clerks' Organization.
OPINION OF HOARD: Claimant Podolski requested assignment to a temporary vacancy in Relief Position No. 4 commencing at 7:45 A. M. on Friday, January 9, 1970. The Cluimant's regular assignment was Relief Position No. 2 which involved a 11,:45 P. M. to 7:45 A. M. shift. Thursdays and Fridays were `rest days from his regular assignment.
Pursuant to his request, Claimant was assigned to a temporary vacancy in Relief Position 4 and worked from 7:45 A. M. until 3:45 P. M. on January 9, 1970 and gave up the temporary vacancy to return to his regular Relief Position No. 2.
There was no furloughed employe available to work the temporary vacancy (which Claimant had given up) in Relief Position 4 so Claimant was asked to work again the 7:45 to 3:45 shift on January 10, 1970 and he did.
Later in the day on January 10, 1970 Claimant became ill and could not go to work at 11:45 P. M. (the starting time of his regular shift) because of illness. Claimant wants sick leave pay and Carrier refuses to make such payment alleging that Claimant had already worked at the penalty rate on that date, had been paid for that day and therefore is not entitled to the sick leave.
It appears that Carrier is alleging in effect: (1) that when Claimant started to work on January 9, 1970 a day started at 7:45 A. M. and that the day ended January 10, 1970 at 7:45 A. M.; (2) that another day began at 7:45 A. M. January 10, 1970 and that for working the 7:45 to 3:45 shift on said day, Claimant was given overtime for work done in advance of assigned hours; (3) that because Claimant was paid for the hours 7:45 A. M. to 3:45 P. M. on January 10, 1970, Claimant may not get paid sick leave for missing his 11:45 shift.
Upon analyzing the entire situation, it seems to us that had Claimant gone to work at 11:45 P. M. on January 10, 1970 and worked until January 11th 7:45 A. M. he would have been paid at the straight rate for said hours and they would have been regarded as his regular work hours. We do not think their characted is altered by the fact that earlier on the calendar day of January 10, 1970 Claimant worked some hours at the overtime rate.