(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTS TO DISPUTE: (
 
  (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:
  North Western Transportation Company Carrier") violated the current Agreement
 
  July1976)   the parties, APPENDIX "C" thereof in
e Carrier Need and continues to refuse to alloy Assistant Chief lain Dispatcher G. P. Mangan (hereinafter referred to
 
  as "the   imant") compassionate leave on Thursday, December 14, 1978,
  Friday, December 15, 1978 end   U►, December 18, 1978, which were
working days of the Claimant's Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher position in the Boone, Iowa train dispatching office in accordance with
 
  APPENDIX "Cy.
  (b) The Carrier shall now be required to compensate the Claimant for compassionate leave allowance for Decedber 14, 15 and 18, 1978 at the rate of the Claimant's Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher position.
 
 
OPINION ar BOARD: On December 15, 1978, Claimant, George P. Mangan, an
  Assistant Chief Train Dispatcher employed at Carrier's facility in Boone, Iowa, sUbmitted a written vacation advisory in which he indicated he would be off from work beginning Decesiber 11, 1978 through January 12, 1979. Claimant further indicated he had only twelve (32) days of paid vacation remaining far 1978 and advised Carrier that of this total, three (3) days be applied toward vacation in the first half of December and the remaining nine (9) days be applied in the second half of December. However, the total nuMber of days Claimant would actually be off in December amounted to fifteen (15) days, thus signalling his intention to incur three (3) days of leave without pay. Because the Claimant did not specifically indicate which dates would be the non-paid vacation days, the timekeeper,
 
  . according to the Carrier, arbitrarily selected, for payroll purposes, the dates of December 11, 12 and 25, 1978.
 
  Picture
 
(a)
  Picture
 
  Award Number 23221   Page 2
Docket Number TD-23364


Matelot's mother-in-law deceased on date of December 14, 1978, a Thursday and—her funeral was the following Monday, December 18, 1978. On date of December 27, 1978, Claimant filed for three (3) days of bereavement leave in accordance with the provisions of Appendix C of the Controlling Agreement, effective July 1, 1976, which in whole reads as follows:
 

"MEMORANDUM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
AND THE AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
COVERING COMPASSIONATE LEAVE
  "It is hereby mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto that the following provisions governing compassionate leave shall become effective July 1, 1976;
 
  Section 1. The provisions of this agreement are applicable to dispatchers coming under the scope of the C6MWT-ATDA agreement effective July 1, 1976 or any agreement which may hereafter be substituted therefor. .
 
  Section 2. Employes who are eligible for and have unused sick time to their credit will, in the event of the death of a spouse, child, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, brother, or sister, be allowed up to a total of three (3) working days paid leave to attend the funeral and handle personal matters in connection therewith.
 
  Allowance for such absence will be at the rate of the position held at the time of such absence.
 
  Any days allowed under this Section 2 will be applied against the number of days which the employe is eligible for sick leave allowance,"
 
     Award Number   Page 3
     Docket Number   64



On date of January 2, 1979, Carrier denied Claimant's filing for bereavement leave account, "Claim not supported by rules and agreements. Vacation from 12/11 thru 1/12 per message dated 12/5/78." iMder date of February 7, 1979, Carrier issued in written form a revised procedure to be followed in handling bereavement or compassionate leave and accordingly Claimant reinitiated his claim for the three (3) days of leave, submitting an Application for Bereavement Leave form along with a Certificate of Death for his Mother-in-law on February 20, 1979. On February 22, 1979, the Carrier again notified Claimant by Time Report Correction Form 712, that his leave request was being declined for the very same reason /Awes originally denied.
 
It is conceded by the Carrier that Claimant, in all respects met what was procedurally required of him by the provisions of Appendix C end the revised procedure issued on February 7, 1979, in submitting the bereavement leave request. It is conceded too, that Claimant possessed a sufficient amount of unused sick leave to qualify for the maximum bereavement benefit of three (3) days. It is Carrier's position however that the purpose of the bereavement provision was to prevent dispatchers from losing pay in those instances where it was necessary to lay off for the purpose of attending the funeral and handling personal matters arising therefrom and in connection therewith. But where, as here, an employe is not working at a time coincident with the death of a contractually covered relative, the Carrier takes the position the employe is not entitled to any bereavement leave nor to any bereavement pay. Carrier maintains that since Claimant was on vacation, the death of his mother-in-law did not place him in a position of having to lay off from work nor of incurring any loss of pay. Carrier argues, Claimant had, in advance of his mother.-in-law's death, determined that he was not going to work on the dates in question and therefore submits that it matters not whether he received vacation pay for the claim dates of December 14, 15 and 18, 1978, or whether those were the three (3) dates taken as leave without pay.
  Award k ber 23221 Docket Number TDe23364
 
 
ni   n takes the position that the claim dates which
  fell on a Thursday,   and Monday were, in fact, working days of
  Claimant's since his regular assignment called for work days of Monday
  through Friday-with rest days of Saturday and Sunday. Furthermore, the
  Organization refutes Carrier's argument Claimant was not specific as to
  which three (3) dates were to be considered as leave without pay, noting
  Claimant's *written vacation advisory directed Carrier to mark him on
  vacation three (3) days in the first half of December and that he intended
  to commence his vacation December 11, 1978. The Organization asserts it
  is logical therefore, that the three (3) vacation days in the first half
  of December would begin with December 11 and continue through December 13,
  1978. Thus., reasons the Organization, Claimant was on leave Without pay
  on December 14 and 15, the day and the day after his mother-in-law
  deceased. Carrying this logic one step further, the Organization suggests
  that since the one remaining day of leave without pay was to be applied
  to the second half of December, it would be appropriate that this date
  should be December 18, 1978, the date of the funeral. Since these were
  days paralleling those of Claimant's assigned working days and further,
  that said days could be considered those constituting leave without rey,
  the Organization argues that Claimant vas, under the provisions of Appendix
  C, as well as the revised bereavement leave procedure issued February 7, 1979,
  entitled to the maximum bereavement leave and thus pay for the aforementioned
  three (3) dates.
  In reviewing the entire record of evidence before us, we are persuaded that resolution of the dispute lies in the meaning of What constitutes a working day. It is our view that a working day is more than just the mere paralleling of days in one's regular assignment while off on vacation or on leave without pay as so asserted here by the Organization. We believe certain expectations attach to a working day, in particular, that on the part of the employe, he/she is available and ready to work his/her regular assignment and on the part of the employer, that the employe will report to work. In the instant case, these expectations were nonexistent on the claim dates in question, as the Claimant had indicated he would be on vacation and therefore would not be available or ready to work on these days and Carrier having been so informed of Claimant's intentions did not expect Claimant to report on the claim days in question. There being no intention on the part of Claimant to report to work on the claim dates, it was not necessary therefore for him to receive the intended economic protection afforded by Appendix C, that is preventing him from incurring a loss of pay account laying off because of a death of a contractually covered relative. Claimant had accepted in advance the fact that in order to take an extended vacation on consecutive days with the nadber of remaining vacation days in 1978, he would either have to start his vacation later than he did
 
Award lumber 2 1
  Docket   23364

in the month of December or elect to take some days off without pay.
Claimant chose the latter and the fact that his sea   1n-law died
during this interim, though regrettable, is of no consequence insofar as any contractual right of Claimant to convert the three (3) days of unpaid leave into three (3) days of compensated bereavement leave. We conclude therefore, that the claim is not valid and mist be denied
 
 
S: 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 meftning 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 not violated..

AWARD
  Claim denied.
 
NATIONAL RAILROAD Atvus1242NT BOARD By Order of Third Division
 
ATTEST:   44   
 
  Executive Secretary

411.10•10M1101.
 

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of March 1981.