ORG. FILE 7-64 AWARD NO. 36
CARRIER FILE 140-551-11 CASE NO. 36
NRAB FILE CL-2007
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 174

PARTIES The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employee

TO

DISPUTE The Atchison,'Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:

(a) Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when it failed and refused to compensate Mr. Couch at the rate of the Cashier Position on May 30, 1955; and,

(b) Carrier shall now pay Claimant Couch the difference ($1.58) between the Cashier Position and the General Clerk Position for Memorial Day, May 30, 1955.

FI2.MINGS: Special Board of Adjustment 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.

Claimant was regularly assigned as General Clerk (rated $7.4.92). The occupant of a Cashier position (rated $16.50) not assigned to work holidays took his vacation May 16 through June 3; and Claimant was designated to fill the assignment of the regularly assigned occupant of the Cashier position.

Claimant worked each work day of the Cashier assignment which did not include the May 30 holiday. He was paid the Cashier rate ($16.50) for each day worked and the General Clerk rate ($111.92) for the holiday. Claim is for the difference ($1.58).

AWARD NO. 36

Article II, Section 1 of the Holiday Agreement provides:

" ..each regularly assigned hourly and daily rated employes shall receive eight hours' pay at the pro rata hourly rate of the position to which assigned ...."

Article 10(a) of the Vacation Agreement provides:

"An employee designated to fill an assignment of another employee on vacation will be paid at the rate of such assignment or the rate of his own assignment, whichever is the greater ...."

First. The two rules are not in conflict because the Holiday Rule uses the words "assigned" and not "regularly assigned." If the Holiday Rule had fixed the holiday pay at the rate of the position to which "regularly assigned," it may well be that the special holiday rate would control the general provision of the Vacation Agreement above quoted.

Claimant was not performing the work of his regularly assigned position and also some work of a higher rated position each day as in Second Division Award 2350. He was no longer filling his own regular assigned position on the day the holiday fell; and he was "assigned" the Cashier position that day within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 of the Holiday Agreement.

Second. The purpose of the Holiday Rule is to make the employe whole or oss of earnings in weeks during which holidays fall; and this purpose is not served by paying Claimant the rate of his regular assigned osition which he was not working on the holiday (SAB No. 239 Award 1).

AWARD

Claim.sustained.

_ /s/ Hubert Wyckoff

Chairman

/s/ L. D. Comer /s/ W. Ray Clark

Carrier r -Me-We-r Employe Member

Dated at Los Angeles, California, April fly, 1961