NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-20501
William M. Edgett, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
( Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company
( (Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-
7415) that:
(a) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company violated the
current Clerks' Agreement when it required Mr. S. S. Stein, Assistant Head
Timekeeper, to suspend work of his assignment during regular hours for the
purpose of performing timekeeping and related work attached to vacationing
employe John Diaz's Station Timekeeper position; and failed and refused to
fill Mr. Diaz's position under the provisions of Rule 34(c) of the Agreement and/or the National Vac
(b) The Southern Pacific Transportation Company shall now be
required to allow Mr. S. S. Stein eight (8) hours' additional compensation
at pro rata rate of Station Timekeeper November 26, 29, 30, December 1, 2,
3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13, 1971 and each date thereafter that he is required
to suspend work during regular hours of his assignment, Assistant Head
Timekeeper, for the purpose of performing timekeeping and related work
attached to positions of vacationing timekeepers whose positions are not
filled under the terms of Rule 34(c) of the Agreement and/or the National
Vacation Agreement.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant is an assistant Head Timekeeper in Carrier's
General Offices. During the vacation of Station Timekeeper John Diaz Claimant was assigned to pe
of Assistant Head Timekeeper was created, in part, to provide vacation and
other necessary relief.
The claim asserts a violation of Rule 34 - Short Vacancies, and
the National Vacation Agreement. The assignment of Claimant to replace
a vacationing employee did not violate Rule 34 since Section 12(b) of the
Vacation Agreement provides that vacation absence "will not constitute
vacancies in their position under any Agreement."
The principal argument centers on the meaning of Article 10(b)
of the Vacation Agreement. Article 10(a), which is also invoked is shown
below, along with Article 10(b)
Award Number 20523 Page 2
Docket Number CL-20501
"(b) Where work of vacationing employees is disributed among two or more employees, such employe
will be paid their own respective rates. However,
not more than the equivalent of twenty-five per cent
of the work load of a 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."
"10. (a) An employee designated to fill an assignment
of another employee on vacation will be paid the rate
of such assignment or the rate of his own assignment,
whichever is the greater; provided that if the assign
ment is filled by a regularly assigned vacation relief
employee, such employee shall receive the rate of the
relief position. If an employee receiving graded rates,
based upon length of service and experience, is designated
to fill an assignment of another employee in the same occu
pational classification receiving such graded rates who is
on vacation, the rate of the relieving employee will be paid."
Distribution of more than twenty five percent of the work of
a vacationing employee among his fellow employees is prohibited by the
language of 10 (b) and prior Awards of this Board. If the distribution
of Mr. Diaz's work was what we were dealing with here the result would
favor Claimant's position. The purpose of Article 10 (b) is to prevent a
Carrier from operating the vacation program on a "keep up the work"
principle and thereby burden its employees with what was intended to be
a benefit. To that end, Article 10(a) and 10(b) along with Article 6
(which has not been reproduced here), contemplates the use of relief
workers. Claimant's regular duties include vacation relief, and when
he performed that duty in relieving Mr. Diaz it was not in violation of
any Rule or Agreement.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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; and
Award Number 20523 Page 3
Docket Number CL-20501
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL. RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
9A/1 jaza~
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of November 1974.