NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Locket Number SG-24436
Herbert L. Marx, Jr., Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood
of Railroad Signalmen on the Illinois Central Gulf
Railroad:
On behalf of Traveling Maintainer J. D. Audas for 40 hours' additional
pay at the straight time rate (total $411.60), account being used to perform
vacation relief work in excess of 25% of Signal Maintainer O. L. Boyd's vacation
period for the week of September 15, 1980; and that Carrier re-establish
vacation relief positions that were abolished on the Kentucky Division effective
June 13, 1980.· (Carrier file: 153-914-10 Sp1. Case #369 Sig.)
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier abolished two vacation relief Signal Maintainer
positions as of June 13, 1980. Signal Maintainer 0. L.
Boyd was on vacation for the week beginning September 15, 1980. During that
week, the Organizatin alleges that Traveling Maintainer J. D. Audas, the
Claimant, performed work "on Mr. Boyd's territory a total of 16 hours ... or
40% of the vacation period".
The Organization argues that this is in violation of Sections 6 and
10 (b) of the Vacation Agreement, which read as follows:
"6. The Carriers will provide vacation relief workers but the
vacation system shall not be used as a device to make unnecessary
jobs for other workers. Where a vacation relief worker is not
needed in a given instance and if failure to provide a vacation
relief worker does not burden those employees remaining on the job,
or burden the employee after his return from vacation, the carrier
shall not be required to provide such relief worker. (From Section
6 of 12-17-41 Agreement)"
"10. (b) Where work of vacationing employees is distributed among
two or more employees, such employees will be paid their own
respective rates. However, not more than the equivalent of twentyfive per cent of the work load of a
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."
Award Number 24539 Page 2
Locket Number SG-24436
The Board has carefully reviewed the record of this dispute and
finds that the Organization has failed to show any of the following: (a) that
there were specific duties amounting to 16 hours of the vacationing Signal
Maintainer's work which the Claimant performed; (b) that the assignments on
these days were other than duties which would be performed by the Claimant in
the regular course of his work; or (c) that the work assignments were a "burden"
to the Claimant by failure of the provision for a vacation relief worker.
In the view of the Board, the Organization has not met the necessary
burden of proof indicating violation of Rules 6 or 10 (b) of the vacation
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
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Divickon
ATTEST:
Nancy J. v -Executive Secretary
~-
i
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of October, 1983.
f c_
