Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Award No. 42595 Docket No. MW-42711 17-3-NRAB-00003-140424

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Robert A. Grey when award was rendered.

(Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division ( IBT Rail Conference

PARTIES TO DISPUTE: (

(Springfield Terminal Railway Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(1) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed and refused to allow employe J. Waltman a third week of vacation in calendar year 2013 (Carrier's File MW-13-24).

(2) As a consequence of the violation referred to in Part (1) above, Claimant J. Waltman shall be allowed forty (40) hours' pay at his applicable straight time rate."

FINDINGS:

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 were given due notice of hearing thereon.

The Claimant seeks a third week of vacation pursuant to Article 18.4, which states:

"Three weeks vacation, each week consisting of five (5) consecutive work days with pay will be granted yearly to an employee covered by this Agreement who renders compensated service on not less than one hundred (100) days during the preceding calendar year and who has eight (8) or more years of continuous service and who, during such period of continuous service renders compensated service on not less than one hundred (100) days in each of eight (8) of such years, not necessarily consecutive."

At issue is when did Claimant attain eight (8) years of continuous service for vacation qualifying purposes under Article 18? Article 18.1 states that: "The beginning date for determination of continuous service will be the employee's entered service date . . ." Article 18.15 states: "All other provisions of the December 17, 1941, National Vacation Agreement will apply to this Agreement." [Emphasis added].

Article 18.3 pertains to two weeks of vacation. The time periods are different, but the operative language in Articles 18.3 and 18.4 is otherwise identical. Article 18.3 states:

"Two weeks vacation, each week consisting of five (5) consecutive work days with pay will be granted yearly to an employee covered by this Agreement who renders compensated service on not less than one hundred ten (110) days during the preceding calendar year and who has two (2) or more years of continuous service and who, during such period of continuous service renders compensated service on not less than one hundred ten (110) days in each of two (2) such years, not necessarily consecutive."

Public Law Board 5606, Award 67 decided the same issue, between the same parties, regarding Article 18.3 of the parties' 2003 Agreement. Award 67 favored the Carrier's interpretation of the operative language of Article 18.3. Award 67 was issued on September 16, 2008. Despite the Organization's unspecified dissent from the Award, the language of both Articles 18.3 and 18.4 remained unchanged from the parties' 2003 Agreement into their 2010 Agreement.

Second Division Award 13985, issued on December 30, 2008, involving Springfield Terminal Railway Company and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen Division of TCIU, found PLB 5606, Award 67 to be "an anomaly" in light of the 1941 National Vacation Agreement ("NVA"). Award 13985 favored the Organization's interpretation.

Second Division Award 14103, issued on December 17, 2014, involving Springfield Terminal Railway Company and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, engaged in a detailed and cogent analysis of both PLB 5606, Award 67 and Second Division Award 13985. Award 14103 noted a key difference between the language of the Springfield Terminal Agreements and the NVA: unlike the NVA, "under Rule 18 [of the Springfield Terminal Agreements] the parties have agreed to factor into the equation . . . date of entry into service with the Carrier as denoting the starting point of 'continuous service.' That definition does not appear in the NVA." Award 14103 also noted that "It is undisputed that the Springfield Terminal Railway Company was not signatory to the NVA." Award 14103 favored the Carrier's interpretation of Article 18.

After careful and thorough review of this history of Awards and interpretation, this Board does not find that the on-property Award between the parties at bar, i.e., PLB 5606, Award 67, was palpably erroneous. Nothing in the record provides a basis for deviating from the on-property precedent it established. It will therefore be followed in the interest of stability.

AWARD

Claim denied.

ORDER

This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of Third Division

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of April 2017.