C:\MYDOCU~1\SCHEDU~2\3-30588.htm

Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD THIRD DIVISION Award No. 30588 Docket No. CL-30738 94-3-92-3-734 The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee John C. Fletcher when award was rendered. (Transportation-Communications International ( Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"Claim of the System Committee of the Union (GL-10867) that:

1. Carrier violated the effective agreement when it failed to compensate employees L. Dingee and M. Simon for March 29, 1991, a holiday.

2. Carrier shall now compensate each claimant eight (8) hours pay at the straight time rate of the position they worked just prior to March 29, 1991, in addition to any other moneys already paid for such date."

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the who= record and all the evidence, finds that: The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934. This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein. Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hear::i3 thereon. Form 1 Award No. 30588 Page 2 Docket No. CL-30738 94-3-92-3-734

Claimants, both "other than regularly assigned employees," were called to work on Saturday, March 30, 1991, the day following the Good Friday Holiday. Neither responded to the call, and they did not receive compensation for service performed for Carrier on that date. On the basis that they were not available for service on the calendar day following a holiday, Carrier did not allow them Holiday Pay for the Good Friday Holiday, even though both had received compensation on eleven of the thirty days preceding the holiday, and had performed forty hours extra board work during the workweek of the holiday.

The Organization contends that both should have been paid Holiday Pay because furloughed employees are generally not entitled to be called for work beyond forty hours in a workweek. Further, it is the intent of the Holiday Agreement to only require that furloughed employees be available for work at straight time rates, and not overtime rates. Also, when an employee has completed his workweek, as is the case here, it is unreasonable and ridiculous to require additional qualification for Holiday pay.

The Board notes that the qualifying requirements, for entitlement for Holiday pay for other than regularly assigned employees, is quite explicit. First the employee must

compensation credited to 11 or more of the thirty calendar 3a ;s immediately preceding the holiday. Next the employee must have compensation for service credited, or be available for service. n the calendar day preceding and the calendar day following

holiday. Available for service is defined to mean that an emplo;,eis available unless he lays of respond to call.

The facts in this case are not controverted. Claimants i:J not respond to a call for service on the calendar day following

Good Friday Holiday. They were other than regularly assij::--i employees at the time, even though they had already worked f:r-"I hours that week. Their status did not change because of .._ totality of their work schedules. They were still other -n-in regularly assigned, and to be eligible for Holiday Pay it :3s necessary to satisfy the explicit requirements of the Holiday

Agreement for this class of employee.

Claimants did not satisfy these requirements. The claim ... without merit. It will be denied.

AWARD

Claim denied. Form 1 Award No. 30588 Page 3 Docket No. CL-30738 94-3-92-3-734 ORDER This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to Claimant(s) not be made. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of December 1994.