PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 5533 Case No. 5
PARTIES . ) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
 AND AEROSPACE WORKERS
 'ID )

 DISPUTE ) THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY

 STATEMENT OF CLAIM



FINDINGS

This Board upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that the employees and the carrier involved in this dispute are respectively employees and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended and that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.


The Claimants herein represent a group of twelve employees, each of whom was on a bulletined job which paid the skill differential for eight (8) hours each workday. This claim was filed in response to the Carrier's refusal to pay the skill differential to the Claimants for vacations and holidays.


The Organization maintains that under Rule 58 of the September 30, 1985, Agreement, the Carrier paid emplyees eligible for the six cents ($.06) per hour differential for both holidays and vacations. However, the Organization stresses that after the July 31, 1992, arbitrated Agreement became effective, the Carrier refused to pay the newly established skill differential for holidays and vacations.


The Carrier defends this position, arguing that the language of Rule 58 of the September 30, 1985, Agreement was essentially replaced by the very specific language of Article VII, Section 1, which states:


















                    Precision Machine Operators

                    Governor Room Work

                    Air Room Work

                    Engine Rebuild

                    Alignment of -

                    Main generators/alternators

                    Air Compressors (mechanical drive)

                    Auxiliary generators

                    Fan Drives/Equipment Blowers (mechanical drive) Gear Trains - Build-up locomotive gear trains


                shall receive a differential of 25 cents per hour, effective January 1, 1993. Effective January 1, 1994, this differential shall be increased to 50 cents per hours.


        Analysis of the language of Rule 58 of the 1985 Agreement leads this Board to

. conclude that a precise 6 (x.06) cent an hour differential was provided for, but
        did not specifically address the issue involved herein, which essentially is time

        paid, but not worked. The July 1992 Agreement, however, does, in fact, address

        that issue in Section 1 of Article VII, quoted above, wherein it requires such

        payment for specified work ". . . for each hour actually spent performing the

        listed work as set forth below.: (Emphasis added.)


        In conjunction with the premise tht the differential is limited to and appplies only to time worked, Section 2 of Article VII addresses the issue of performing differential work less than eight (8) hours a day, as follows:


            Section 2 - When performing the above work for four (4) hours or less in any one day, employees will be paid the differential on an hourly basis with a minimum of one (1) hour; for more than

' four (4) hours in any one day, the differential will apply for that
 '°=` ~day.
      Aw D Na. 5' Public Law Board 5533 Case No. 5 Page 3


        This Board finds the above language of Section 2 is consistent with the premise of Section 1 in that for less than four (4) hours of differential work, the payment is on an hourly basis of time worked and for more than four (4) hours in a given day, the differential applies for that day only. Clearly, Section 2 provides for but one exception to the Section 1 mandate that the differential is paid for each hour such work is performed. Significantly, that single exception limits such payment to the day on which more than four (4) hours of differential work is performed.


        This Board has carefully examined the parties' controlling Agreement and, especially, the language covering vacations, holidays, personal leave days, jury duty, and bereavement leave and inescapably finds no basis to conclude the parties intended to incorporate the payment of skill differential into those benefits. The Board's inquiry does, however, disclose the provisions of the 1941 National Vacation Agreement continue in effect. The "Interpretations" section dated June 10, 1942, states:


            Article 7


j Article 7(a) provides:

                An employee having a regular assignment will be paid while on vacation the daily compensation paid by the carrier for such assignment.


            This contemplates that an employee having a regular assignment will not be any better or worse off, while on vacation, as to the daily compensation paid by the carrier than if he had remained at work on such assignment, this not to include casual o r unassigned overtime or amounts received from others than the employing carrier.


        When the above interpretive language is read in conjunction with Article VII, Sections 1 and 2, it is evident the parties did not attempt to modify the impact of this long established clarification. Accordingly, this Board is required to sustain the Organization's claim with respect to vacations on the following basis:


Employees regularly assigned to a position identified by Article VII and Side Letter #15, which normally pays the skill differential for all hours every workday, are entitled to the skill differential as part of their vacation pay. In all other instances, such as holdiays, personal leave days, jury duty, and bereavement leave, the skill differential does not apply to time paid, but not worked.

Public Law Board 5533 Case No. 5 Page 4

 AWARD
Claim sustained in part and denied in part per the above FINDINGS.

              Ag4

                Robert W. McAllister

                Chairman and Neutral Member


J. S~. boons Predrick D. Nalley
 Carrier Member Organization Member

~2slc. ~ !~g~E

Date

 ~~J