~~)13~d~5
~_<i~V Tr~·tI~F. :;~.
.LiSi-;
AWARD F:O. 6 6
CASE N0. 81
PARM~S TO THE DISPUTE:
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
and
Chicano and North Western Transportation Company
STAI EMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(1) The Agreement was violated when Track Foreman Dale Tenner
at Merrillan, Wisconsin was not compensated for one (1) hour
of service performed Tuesday, September 5, 1978 between
3:00 and 4:00 PM and Labor Day Holiday pay of eight hours
on September 4, 1978. (System File 81-19-175)
(2) That Claimant Dale Tenner now be allowed nine (9) hours
pay at his straight time rate of pay for violation referred
to in part one (1) of this claim."
OPINION OF BOARD:
Claimant is a monthly-rated Foreman working out of Merrillan, Wisconsin.
September
4,
1.978 was the Labor Day Holiday for that year. The following day,
September
D,
Pi78, t«e BRHC engaged in a work-stoppage and claimant chose not
to cross -ho picket lire. He did appear or. Carrier's property for ore hour
from 3:00 PM t,) 4:00 PM or. September 5, 1978, however, after the Strike was
over. Carrier asserted that if he did so it was for reasons -e.~'~rr his
oc;n and ire performed no service that day. Claimant insists that he came to
work in rc-ponse to a call and did work for one hour on September 5, 1978.
On the b;i~i;~ that Claimant performed no service on the day after the holiday,
1
Carrier Kdtt
' Lad
from
EW
`* ..mi1L
}tI'J
pJy
tO
cquLVatlt'f:t
nf two days' pay;
reprf
o.1·, >»j
qeptcmber '+
anj
S, 1978. In this claim Mr. McDonald seeks
( [t
rest'fUtion of thu holiday
pay
!t)r SeptumbC'r 4,
1';975
and one hourrs
fray
for Septenhcr S, 1978.
Since Claimant was a monthly-rated employee he, unlike daily-rated or
hourly-rated employees, was not required to perform service on the work days
before and after the holiday in order to qualify for holiday pay. See
Awards 3-X)881, 3-10682, 3--113'12 , 3-12292, and .3-1856? .. The zivad AwardE
also hold that a holida.· is not considered a ;cork day in computing monthly
rates of pay. Holiday pay was added to the monthly-rated employees' annual
earnings in accordance with national agreements and divided by twelve to
determine tae monthly rate. Accordingly, no deduction should hay=e been made
by Carrier from Claimant's pay for the holiday on September 4, 1978.
With regard to the claim for one hour on Seprem'aer 5, 1978, the facts
are in dispute as to whether the agent called Claimant shortly before 3:00 PM
merely to inform him that the strike was over (as stated by Carrier); or
whether the agent called Claimant to work for one hour (as stated by the
organization). The Board cannot resolve this factual dispute on the basis
of the evidence presented by the parties. We note in passing that there is
no claim oeiore the hoaro for the seven hours prior
;u 3:v0
r'.;
u" S`ptcabcr `,
1978.
Based upon all of the foregoing, the claim for one hour on September S,
1978 is dismissed, but that portion of the claim for September 4, 1978 is
sustained. Since there were twenty (20) assigned work days in September 1978
(not counting Monday, September 0, 1978, as a work day), the Claimant's compensaticn for September 1973 .should be adjusted to allow hi.^.1 19/20 of `iii regular
wonth_` w "Tr:'satio11.
3
FINDINGS:
Public Law Board No. 15+4, upon the whole record and all of the
evidenc°~-, f:uc:5 ,n(I hold.. :,s follows:
1. that the Carrier and F:Iploy,:~e involved in this dispute are,
respectively, Carrier and !~mplc: ee within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act;
2. that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein;
and
3. that the Agreement was violated.
AWARD
Claim sustained in part and dismissed in part as indicated
in the Opinion. Carrier shall comply with this Award within
thirtv (30) days of its issuance.
Dana E. Eischen,..Cairman
n
I
H. G. Harper, E~Ioyee Member R. Zd. Schmie ;e, Carr er Member
Dated:
`T,~.- c
4
l 7
s
c.i