The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman when award was rendered.
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole 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 hearing thereon.
Claimants in this case are all former employees of the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad. At issue in this case is application of Paragraphs (a) (d) and (j) of Rule 33 - VACATION of the Agreement between the Parties. The pertinent language of that Rule reads as follows: Form 1 Award No. 31182
It is unrefuted on this record that during the period from 1985 (the initial year of the current Agreement) to July 1992, Carrier credited each employee holding a six-day assignment, six days of compensation for each week of their scheduled vacation. Although the carrier maintains that employees with six day assignments are entitled only to the five days as defined in paragraph (a) it is apparent on this record that it interpreted Rule 33, in accordance with the organization's position.
In a similar case (Third Division Award 29265) the Board sustained the organization's position. With respect to the particular matter of the named Claimants, this Board sees no reason to differ from the findings in that Award.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
The Parties requested an interpretation of Award 31182. In that Award, the Board sustained the Organization's claim. It is the position of the Carrier that the claim as presented to the Board was not a continuous claim, and therefore, did not cover Claimants' vacations taken in 1993, 1994 and prior to the Award in 1995, for which subsequent claims had not been filed by the Organization. Accordingly, payment resulting from the sustaining Award applied only for the year 1992 and from the date of the issuance of the Award.
The Organization maintains that the Award applies to the subsequent years as well, specifically, 1993, 1994, and the portion of 1995 preceding issuance of the Award. In particular, the Organization notes that its statement of claim, quoted in the Board's Award, alleged that the Carrier had violated the Agreement beginning in 1992. Thus, the Carrier owes additional monies to the Claimants.
The Organization has pointed out that, had it suspected that the claim as filed in 1992 would not correct a situation it perceived to be violative of the Agreement, it would have filed subsequent claims while the Docket was pending on the Third Division. In addition, the Organization refers the Board to Rule 36 - Grievance Procedures, paragraph (d) which reads in pertinent part as follows: Page 1 Serial No. 362
In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that Carrier must remit to the Claimants the vacation payments referred to in Award 31182 for the years 1993, 1994, and the period of 1995 preceding issuance of the Award.
Referee Elizabeth C. Wesman, who sat with the Division as a neutral member when Award 31182 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this Interpretation.