COPY
ORG. FILE 18-56
CARRIER FITZ 140-126-35 AUARD N0.
17
NRAB FILE CL-7803 CASE N0.
17
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSThIENT N0. 174
PARTIES The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
TO
DISPUTE The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
STATEHIENT OF CIAINI: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
(a) Carrier violated the provisions of the Vacation Agreement and
the Agreement of August 21, 1954, when it fails and refuses to accord J. A.
Knolls five (5) days vacation in the year 1955; and, -
(b) J. A. Knolls shall now be accorded five (5) days vacation with
pay, or payment in lieu thereof; for the yeah 1955.
FINDINGS: Special Board of Adjust-Tent No. 174, upon the whole record and all
the evidence, finds and holds:
The Carrier and Employes involved in this dispute are respectively
Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended.
This Special Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over this dispute.
Effective with the calendar year 19~.;- the Carri~:r had, of its own
volition and without notice to, or any agreement or understanding of any kind
with, either its employes or their duly accredited representatives, adopted
an interim or temporary vacation policy, as a gratuity to its employe veterans
of World War II, whereby those of the Carriers employes who returned from
military service and re-entered the active service of the Carrier too late in
a calendar year to qualify for a vacation in the following calendar year were
granted a vacation with pay in such following calendar year the same as if
they had performed the necessary qualifying service in the preceding calendar
year, provided they remained in the active service of the Carrier until the
end of the calendar year in which they returned from military service.
This vacation policy was later extended, also without notice to,
and without agreement or understanding with the Carriers employes or their
duly accredited representatives, th)se of the Carriers employe veterans who
returned to the Carriers service diring and following the so-called Korean
conflict.
Claimant entered the Carriers service June 18, 1951. He entered
the military service December 22;, 1952 and served until June 23, 1954. He
returned to the Carriers service July 19, 1954, following which he rendered
compensated service for the Carrier on 112 days during the remainder of the
calendar year 1954.
qv
SB#»N- A..,,jo
Since Claimant had not performed at least 133 days of compensated
service during the calendar year
1954,
as requi,,ed by Artiule I Section 1 (a)
of the August 21,
1954
Agreement, he failed to qualify for a vacation with
pay during the calendar year
1955
which is what he claims.
He would have qualified under the Cgrrier's vacation policy, but
following the adoption of Section 1 (g) of Article I - Vacations - in the
August 21,
1954
Agreement, the Carrier discontinued its vacation policy.
The Carrier never had communicated or enunciated its vacation
policy by letter to the Organization as in S.B.A. No. 173 Award 1 Case
5.
For the reasons stated in Awards
6912, 7339, 8123, 8257, 8691
and
8836
this claim should be denied.
A W -1 R D
Claim Denied.
Ls/
Hubert Wyckoff
Chairman
Zs/
F. D. Comer
Ls/
W. Ray Clark
Carrier Member Employe Member
Dated at Chicago,, Illinois, October 7:
1959.
2