PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7460

PARTIES TO

DIS PUT E

) BROTHERHOOD OF MAIN TEN ANC E OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION

)

) PA DUCA H & LO UISV ILLE RAILWAY

ST ATE MENT OF CLAIM:

( l) The Agreement was violated when the Carrier failed to comply with the "me too" provisions and allow BMWED members to take another, ;vee k vacation in single day increments [System File 20 02 21 (001 ) PLR].

(2) As a consequence of the violat io n referred to in Part (1 ) above. all employes covered by the BMW ED Agreement shall be allow ed to designate two (2) weeks of their vacation to be taken in single day in cre me nts.

FINDINGS:

The Board , upon consideration of the entire record and all of the evidence , finds that the parties are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended , that this Board is duly constituted by Agreement dated December 16. 2010 , this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herei n, and that the parties were given due notice of the hearing held.

On Ju l y 15 , 2019 the Carrier and the Organization reached an agreement in settlement of the Organization·s December 17 , 2018 Section 6 Notice. As part of that agree me nt, the parties amended Article VT - Vacat io ns to read as follows:

( b) (I) Emp lo yees will be required to subm i t vacation requests before December I of each year. When vacations are taken due re gard consistent with requirements of the service shall be gi ve n to the desires and preferences of the employees in senior-

PUBLIC LAW BOARD No. 7460

AWARD NO. 16

PAGE2

ity order when fixing dates for their va cat ions. Except as provided in Section (b) (2), be low, vacations may be split in segme nt s of not less than five days. Represen tatives of the Co mpa ny and the Organ izat i on will cooperate in assigning vacation days.

(2) Commenc i ng with the vacation year beginning January 1 , 2020, employees who qualify to receive two (2) or more weeks of vacation may opt to designate one (1) week of their vacation to be taken in si ngle-da y i ncrements , under the following cond i tions:

(i ) The employee must notify the Carr ier of their desire to take one (1) week of vacation in si ngle -day increments at the time they submit their vacat ion requests before December 1 of each year.

(ii) Weeks of vacation taken in single-day increments wi ll not be included in the vacation schedu le.

( i ii ) Single-day vacat ions may be taken upon forty-eight (48) hours ' advance notic e to the designated officer of the Carrier, subject to availabi 1- ity of extra employees.

( i v) Unused single-day vacation days will not be carried over into the foll owi ng year and w ill not be paid for if not used.

1n connection with this Agreement , the parties agreed to Side Letter No . 1, which reads. in pertinent part, as foll ows:

The Carrie r is currently engaged in bargaining with the other U ni ons representing its unionized employees. If, during this current round of barga i n i ng, the Carrie r reaches agreement on changes to wages or benefits with any other U n ion which the Organization believes are more favorable than the terms of our Agreement, the parties wit I meet promptly to address the differences; and, as app ropr i ate, adjus t the wage and /or benefit terms in our Agreement.

It is recognized that any more favorable wages or benefits in another Agreement that were the product of quid pro quo improvements for the Carrie r in that Agreement, the parties will take such changes into consideration before any adjustments are made to the wage and benefit terms of our Agreement between the Paducah & Louisville Ra il way, In c. and the BMWED .

The change in Article VI that is relevant to this dispute is Section (b)(2), which permits employees to take one week of their vacation allowance in single-day increments. Previou sl y,

PUBI.IC LA W B OARD No. 7460

AWARD NO. 16

P AGE 3

employees ,vere required to take vacation in one-,veek increments. Th us, the Organization obtained a benefit that had been afforded some other crafts , including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) . Subseq uen t to its settlement with the BMWED , the Carrier reached an agreement with the IBEW which modified their vacation provisions to allow employees to take a second week of vacation in single-day i ncrements . The Organization argues the " me too" conditions of Side Letter No. I entitle its members to also take two weeks of vacation in single-day increment s .

It is the Organization's position that the negotiations with the IBEW resulted i n a more favorable benefit to those employees, i.e.. the right to take t,vo weeks of vacation in single-day increments. The Organization denies the Carrier has proven it granted the second week as part of a quid pro quo exchange. It asks. therefore, that the grievance be sustained and that employees be permitted to take tv,1 0 weeks of their vacation allowance in singl e-day increments. The Organization asserts this change would be cost-neutral for the Carrier.

The Carrier explains it engaged in negotiations with other unions following its settlement with the BMW ED. Specifica lly , it refers to agreements it reached with the Brotherhood Railway Carmen Div ision/ TC U-IAM (BRC) , the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM&A W), the Transportation Comm unic ations Union/IAM (TCU-Cle rks), and the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) , as well as the IBEW . The agreements with the IAM&A W. the TCU-Cle rk s, and the BRS had vaca tion provisions similar to that of the BMWED ,

i.e., employees could take vacation only in one-week increments.

PU l3 LIC LAW BOARD NO. 7460

AWARDN0.16

PAGE 4

The IBEW and BRC agreements, on the other hand , had already permitted one week of vacation to be taken in sin gle - day increments. Those organi zations argued their members should be given a second week of single-day increments to retain the parity with the BMW ED.

According to the Carrier, the IBEW , the BRC, the IAM&A W. and the TCU-Clerks subse- quently began bargaining as a coalition. The Carrie r agreed to give each of these organizations one week of single-day vacations. Consequently , the !BEW and the BRC have two weeks of single-day vacat ions, and the IAM&A Wand the TCU-Clerks received their first week. The Carrier asserts the IAM&A W wanted to be on an equal footing with the other two shop craft un ions, so it agreed to offer them a second week if they gave up the $500 lump sum payment that was part of the pattern established in the BM WED agreement. The same offer was made to the TCU-Clerk s and the BRS. The IAM&A W accepted the offer, but the TCU-Clerks and the BRS did not.

Once all of the agreements were ratified, the Carrier contacted the BMWED General

Chairman and extended the same offer of exchanging the $500 lump sum, which had already been paid, for the second week of single-day increments for vacation. The General Chairman responded that it would not be likely that the employees would return the lump sum payment.

In reviewing the context of all of the neg otiati ons, it is the Board ' s determination that all of the organizations, including the IBEW, were offered one week of si ng le -day vacation usage. For some, that resulted in the first week. For others , it res ult ed in the second week. This week consti- tuted the change to benefits that was the subject of Side Letter No. I . The fact that the IBEW and the BRC already had one week was the result of previous negotiati ons, and simply provided the base for the week covered in the 2019 negotiations. To analogize , if the Carrier offered a 4% wage

PUBL.IC LAW BOARD NO. 7460

AWA RD No. 16

PAGE 5

increase to other un ions, the " me to o" agreement would require the same 4% offer, even though the ele ctric ia ns' base wages as the result of prior agreements might be higher than the maintenance of way employees' wages. The Carrier would not be obligated to raise BM WED wages to equal those of the IBE W.

Based upon the record before us. we cannot find that the Agreement was violated.

AWARD : Claim denied.

4 4'-

;ohn -S

Employee Member

Dated: 1 2 / ( '8/ o21.

Arlington Heights, l11i no is

'I t.,L.I_;_

Rodney Goodwin Carrier Member