0 contained dispute cal_s for a determination as to whether the phrase, "year!! of service," a.~
 eantttined in ?t·eticle 21, Personal Leave, of the Schedule of Rules Agrcemcnt mear5 years
 of service in train service only as opposed to iniluditrg yuni of scrvicc that an etnpluycr
 siwtked m another Craft OT class of service far thr. Gamier prior to establishing seniority in
 train service.






            Less than S years 3 daps

            Five years and _css tl,4nr )0 years 5 days

            Ten years and less than 15 years 7 days

            Fifteen years and less: than 20 years g days

            Twenty years or more 11 lags


          I3. Tire number of personal leave days each road freight service eniplayee is entitled to shall he reduced by the number of paid holidays tar pay page t

                                              k°G /,~ ND · 6 q/ ~

                                              AExA1tf1 NO. :6

                                              CASE: NO. 25


t in lien tltcrrvf] received ist ccrvcretl snarl service or in the cxcrr:i<e of
 dun[ road and yard scnivriiy rights, Once. an ctstplaysx has reached the
 noxxisaitrum of 17 dons, hr will not lx entitled in an?' additional paid
 holidays or pGtsonal leave days in that calendar year. If aa, s:ntplopce
 takes any of his personal leave daps iIeforo his service artcain'wsdrdstr, in a year in which his cntitiemsnt %-III inercase, he may take up to
 the nttmbcr of leave daps he is t:ntitted to privy W his atsri ves carp date
 and then take the additional days that he is entitled to after his rxn'ice
 anniversary dart,
 In the: lead ra-ve aiGSd try the porties, an employee who had been hired on Fe'Druary 7, 1980
 as ecshap taborer transferred us the Engineering Department an August I9, 1990, and then
 transferred info train service, establishing seniority iii this letter service: on .lantiarr 8,
 1996.
 Mier wariang in train service In 1996 rend 1997 that was subjact to the National Holiday
 Rule. Article 35< this iatiplafee, in 1999, started working in train service that was not
 covered by the National Holiday ftutc. Upon checking the umber of personal leavc days
 to ~.vhialt 1,~ was entitled, this errtploycc was told by the Catricr that it was only credit in&
 hint vvztls 3 persasial leave days. It is the contention of the Organization that this
 csrtplay'sx is entitled to 9' personal leave days based upon his I$ yews of cErntint:aur.
 wr,,~iue for the Carrier.
 The Organization contends drat the Carrier in wcking to add latngtttst;c! rlust is not
 contained in Article 21. It asserts that had the nullsars of Article 21 intended only the
 years of train service Ea apply that they would have headed the chart. "Years of (rain
 Service; ' or, "Years; of Sertiaritl·."
 In support of its position, the Organization maintains that since. Article 21 applies to
 emprlciyee3 wtw arc not covered under the Nations! Paid Holiday Rule (Article 35 in the
 Schedule of Rules Agmn3sanx), and Article 35 allows an esnplayoc in train service t 3
 ktalidstyyx:r yeas' i_' the ursploycc is in a utvrxod service, without any rs:farcncr la years
 of g»rssire in train service to rtttalify far each of the 1 J holidays, that Articlc 21 should
 likewise ac read to boon intended an entitlement to perxonal leaner days on the basis of al
 years of past service with the Carrier
 The Organization also directs attention to the National Vacation rlbrcernent, Article; 36 in
 the SclwKluls of £Lults sSgreesnent fn this rcsgtact, it paints to paragraphs vi). (h?, (c), (dj
 and (r) ufiers^ist it is stated than to be entitled to the various nttmbcrs of evecks of vacation
 that an employee ha4s continuing service and have also worked a zertabi rsurribw ref
 ptessrihed day,; in the preceding year. £;nnlittuntts sanice, the Organization submits,
 without refutation here h} the Carrier as cvncams vacations, is rccagttized ttt include all
 smice with the Carrier and not just train servicc.
 Page 2

                                          KGB ?VO · 59i& AWARD NO, Zb CASE NO.26


It is. the position of the Carrier that the number of personal lame days _o which an employer is entitled under the terms trod eantlitiotts of Artislc 2! is dependent solely vn rite ttcuttber of yews of sctwiee D1tat an emp133yea rtes been in train scn.icc_ tt says that if the neeotiatats of hrtiolr 21 had intended that seniority gained in other than train service was. to else be a criteria that they wouh# ftsvc included languagr Ea: that effitt in the ruir, 'flaerefaro, the Carrier eontcstds that work pcrftarrned by an employee in other crafts and classes of employment is hat to be used to dctctnaine qualifying years of service fret an

entitlement to personal soave daps.

Although the Carrier says that Article 21 "Jigs al`vayt lacseu irtterpretctt rts the :reseal tithe" that cut s:mployec hex worked in train seroifia, no pTobative documentation is presented to establish the basis for seals an argument.


The record. before the Board does not show why it was dcteimincd sac what eras staid ua the faaimasst about a catty over of rcantitutous years of service with the Carrier when he transferred or ores offered the opportunity .tf employtnent in train serritx:. 7he record tiocs, hamtver, contain an uttrcfutad statement in a letter froth the Organization to the Carrier tit,·st the crrtpltayce ",mas allowed to keep his longevity of service;." It is also rtotcd shat a dorurncttt of record. brFore the Board that was generated from Carrier costtptstirr regards, coot is entitled, "Train tied Engine Vacation," lists this employee as having a hire data of September` 25, 7978, tt train service seniority date of hate 1, 1998, and sFtow$ "yrarx of sen.~ice" as lacing :P, 'fltus it appears undisputed ice concerns vacations, that prior years of continuous service in other than train vanii~e or operating service is rrcagtuzcd far entitlement to inere:ased numbers of wst:kx of vacation.


The Board also finds it significant to study of the rctard that the third srntrnce of Article
 2I(Fi), supra, rrfercstces Em umpla; ce':: "atruict anniversary( (fate," and hat a seniority in

traixs sarvice anniversary date in making reference tea irstxeasrx in the number of personal leave days to which an employee is entitled.


We also find it noteworthy that them is a direct relationship between an amply>ae being cntitlt~d to holiday day pay tend the mariner in vrhiclt an arttplayee may elect its su_xstitute personal learn days fear paid holidays when in. holiday covered service. Among other things, troth the holiday tray rule and the personal lease role contain language that dates to the manner in '.vhich (he numhc:r or personal Ir·ave days that an entlsloyec is entitled to shall he reduced by the rtuntber of paid holidays rectived in covered mid service or in the exercise Of dual road and yard seniority right% up to a maximum of 11 days. No Crtontiott is nsadc in the holiday pay tutu as to ten antployet baking been in train service for arty specified nurtsher of past years so as to be emitted to holiday pay. Rather, the holiday pay rule prra4rdrs it is payable iT seruice has Lct;n pc.>rfittmcd ors one or tttore of the qualifying day-, necessary to ttnalify for holiday pay.


In nanny respects it appears that tlto t.;turirr is asking that the Board rrvtriti: Article 31 by changing rite chart heading, "5i ears of Service," . to read tar tae ittterpretrd as "Years of


                                                fratte 3

                                            ~'G~3 /LJD. ~lla


                                            AWARD NO. 26 CASE NO- 26


'truijs ...~cruicr" or "Years of Cnrttinudrts Train Scrv6cc." 'fire Board deer not have the authority to do so, if the parties f:ad wrsrttcd to limit an cretitlcment to the crntmtaetcxt pers'artal leave days to ysxrs of actual train sarvicc then we _rziieve. that they ubrtld hauc drrae.ro in clear and unambiguous language.


Accordingly, based nn (he rct<drct as presented and devclopei, it will be firsdinge of the Board that the _angttagr 9f Article 21 was intended to include cont9ttuous gears of service that an employee toad worked in crafts or classes of employment outer than train service and which years o1` service art employee is entitled or allttwed to carry over into train service pursuant to sdltectiuely bargained cults or csia'blistttxE policies and procrdures related to xi vatrxfes' at prutnot3or its train setvicc.


AWARD-.

 'Me Question at Issue is determined as set forth in the above rindings.

                      itsrberc E. Peterson

                    Chair & Neutral Member


/~ r < z ~i ~. ~`ds.tr~""` ,., Jl ~
    Patricia !1. Madden Paul C. Thottt .san

    Carrier IVIctrtbes Urgrutization Ivfctrtbcr


Jacksonville. I'1.
 Flawd: ft''ttc~J ~ f c a

 Pbgt 4