NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-22108
Robert A. Franden, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Long Island Rail Road Company
STATEMENT
OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Long Island Rail Road:
Claim No. SG-39-76
Carrier violated the current Signalmen's agreement when
it denied the claimant (Olson) personal leave on June 8th 7976,
and June 9th 1976 after he (claimant) notified Carrier of his
intended absence at 9:00 A. M., on June 7th 1976.
Carrier should now be required to compensate Signal Maintainer Arthur W. Olson, the difference b
which is $7.9952 per hour and the rate of double time and one-half,
which is the penalty rate for being required to work his position
at Dunton interlocking, which is $11.9928 for sixteen (16) hours =
$191.8848 - and additionally for any subsequent days Mr. Olson is
denied personal leave. This is to be considered as a continuing
claim."
OPINION OF BOARD: This claim was filed when carrier refused to
grant claimant personal leave when he requested
same on June 8, 1976 and June 9, 1976. The claimant's request for
personal leave was based on Rule 70 of the agreement between the
parties.
The carrier denied the requested leave because it had
previously granted leave to another in the maintenance subdivision
on the same tour of duty. It is the policy of the carrier to grant
only one leave day on each work day tour per subdivision.
The organization takes the position that the carrier has
no discretion in this matter in that the personal leave day is a
matter of right subject only to the specific limitations set out
in Rule 70.
Award Number 22301 Page 2
Docket Number SG-22108
"RULE 70
-- PERSONAL LEAVE
(a) Subject to the limitations set forth herein Carrier
will grant to each regularly assigned employe subject to
this Agreement, personal leave without loss of pay, not
to exceed three (3) days per calendar year.
(b) Personal leave days, as granted herein, shall be
non-consecutive and shall not be taken in conjunction
with any of the following:
(1) Sick Leave
(2) Holidays
(3) Vacation
(4) On days immediately preceding and/or following
relief days.
Note: Exception to the above will be made only in case of
a required court appearance and/or mortgage closing.
(c) Compensation allowed on personal leave days will be at
the straight time hourly rate of the employe's regular
assignment.
(d) Application for personal leave on forms provided by
Carrier must be filed with the employe's supervisor at
least eight (8) hours prior to the time the employe intends
to be off.
INTERPRETATION
(1) It is not the intent of the Carrier that the employe
be required to file an application form prior to his
absence for personal reasons. The intent of Item (d)
is to assure that the employe's supervisor be
adequately notified of his intended absence at least
eight hours prior to such absence.
(2) It will be necessary, however, that the employe
complete the required form immediately upon his return
to duty. Among other things, this will insure that
the employe will be compensated in the appropriate
pay period."
Award Number 22301 Page 3
Docket Number SG-22108
Rule 70 clearly states that personal leave will be granted
subject to the limitations set out in the rule. The carrier's
attempting to add a further limitation, to-wit: in accord with its
adoption policy. The language of the rule itself along with the
interpretation following creates a right in the employe. The
carrier has infringed on that right by limiting the time when an
employe can take his personal leave beyond those limitations set
out in the rule. This is a violation of the agreement. The carrier
deprived claimant of a right bargained for and granted under the
agreement. He is entitled to be compensated for the loss of that
right. The damages prayed for are not unreasonable.
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
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
a
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 22nd day of February
1979.