C:\MYDOCU~1\SCHEDU~2\3-20056.htm

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Award Number 20056

THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-20000

Irving T. Bergman, Referee

(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, ( Freight Handiers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (The New Orleans Terminal Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-7186) that: (a) Carrier violated the provisions of Article 6 and Article 10 (b) of the Vacation Agreement of Decembef 17, 1941, as amended, at New Orleans Louisiana when it failed to provide proper relief for Mr. R. J. Gray, Chief Clerk to the Superintendent. (b) Mr. Gray shall now be U"mi,cnaated at the time and one half rate of pay for each of the dates Juiy 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, 1970, a total of fifteen (15) days. OPINION OF BOARD: The herein Claim arisor; under the application of Article 6 and Article 10 (b) of the National Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941, as amended. During the period July 13 - 31, 1972 inclusive, the Chief Clerk to the Superintendent at New Orleans, Louisiana, was on his scheduled vacation. His position was not filled with a vacation relief worker as that term is defined in the National Vacation Agreement. Approximately five (5) hours work per day of the Chief Clerk's position was performed during the vacation period by Mrs. G. H. ·3ninn, s: Clerk-Stenographer. The Clerk-Stenographer posit Clerk. Article 6 of the National Vacation Agreement provides: "6. The Carriers will provide vacation relief workers but the vacation system shall rot be used as a device to make unnecessary jobs fog other workers. Where a vacation relief worker is not needed i.u a given instanc to provide a vacation relief worker does not burden those employees remaining on the job, or burden the employee after his return from vacation, iha carrier shall not be required to provide such relief c.~i':er." Article 10 (b) of the National ~7ucation provides: "(b) Where work of vacationing employees is distributed among two or more employe-,, such employees will be paid their own respective rates. However, not more than the equivalent of twenty,five ,:;:r cent of the work load of a Award Number 20056 Page 2 Docket Number CL-20000 "given vacationing employee can be distributed among fellow employees without the hiring of a relief worker unless a larger distribution of the work load is agreed to by the proper local union committee or official." We have examined many Awards of this Division that hold that it is an Agreement violation to distribute more than twenty-five per cent of the work load to other employes while an employe is on vacation. See Awards 19233 (O'Brien), 18786 (Devine), 18433 (Ritter), 17843 (Devine), 16921 (McGovern) and the Awards cited therein. In this dispute the record demonstrates that five-eighths (5/8ths) (or 62-1/2%) of the Chief Clerk's work was performed by the Clerk-Stenographer while the Chief Clerk was on vacation. This disposition of the work to one employe without using a vacation relief employe violated Article 10 (b) of the National Vacation Agreement. We will sustain part (a) of the Claim. With respect to part (b) of the Claim, we note that compensation is claimed by the Chief Clerk who was on vacation. Our review of all of the Awards wherein a violation of Article 10 (b) was found indicates that the claims presented in these prior decisions were presented on behalf of the t employe performing the work, not the employe who was on vacation. No author ities have been cited where claim was made and sustained on behalf of the employe who was on vacation. Accordingly, while holding that the Agreement was violated, we will not depart from our prior holdings and award compen sation to the employe that was on vacation. Part (b) of the Claim will be dismissed. FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and 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 dispute involved herein; and Claim (a) will be sustained. Claim (b) will be denied. Award Number 20056 Page 3 Docket Number CL-20000 A W A R D Claim (a) sustained as indicated in the Opinion; Claim (b) dismissed as indicated in the Opinion. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division ATTEST: recutive Secretary Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of December 1973.