|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
Paid Holidays - Road and Yard
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5308
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific (Western)
Award Date: 1992-01-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Emergency Conductor for sixteen (16) hours and forty-five (45) minutes at the applicable overtime rate of pay, in lieu of compensation allowed for service performed on the July 4th holiday. The Board finds that Claimant did not perform service on the assignment on the qualifying days and therefore the compensation he received for the service performed was proper.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3869-Award 57
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU vs. Houston Belt and Terminal
Award Date: 1987-07-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Foreman and Helpers for eight (8) hours at applicable punitive rate when their job was blanked on a holiday and another crew performed their work. The Board finds that while the Carrier may blank a job, it may not do so for the purpose of avoiding the payment of holiday pay as here appears to be the case.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 910-Award 200
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU-T vs. Conrail
Award Date: 1987-06-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Trainmen for holiday pay. Claimants were displaced from their regular yard assignment upon return from their vacation and reverted to the extra list marking up for service on January 2, 1983. While Claimants contend they were available for service from December 27, 1982, their return from vacation, the performed no service. The Board finds that Claimants failed to qualify for the paid holiday as required by the rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2739-Award 9
Neutral: Don B. Hays
Parties: UTU vs. Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Award Date: 1987-05-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Switchman for holiday pay when used off the yard extra list to perform emergency road service on the holiday. Carrier argues that the awards cited by the Organization have no affect due to their reliance on a "common" road-yard extra list. However, Organization counters by arguing that when Claimant was called from the yard list to protect emergency road service and, in fact, was obligated under the rules to do so, it had the effect of temporarily converting the yardman's board to a de facto "common board." The Board holds in accordance with the position of the Organization and finds that Claimant is entitled to pay for "all services performed on the holiday . . ." at the appropriate rate.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5709
Neutral: Gilbert H. Vernon
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific (Western)
Award Date: 1987-04-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for the mileage of his assignment with 100 mile minimum when it was annulled on the holiday. The Board finds that Claimant had taken eleven (11) personal leave days prior to the claim date and holds that if were to sustain this claim, Claimant would be receiving a greater benefit than other employees. The crew consist agreement provides for eleven (11) personal leave days for road freight employees not entitled to holiday pay or any combination of personal leave and holidays totaling eleven. Claimant had received all to which he is entitled.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3599-Award 10
Neutral: Robert J. Ables
Parties: UTU vs. Union Pacific - South Central District
Award Date: 1986-12-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Footboard Yardmaster and Helpers for 150 miles' holiday pay when their assignment was improperly blanked. Carrier acknowledged its failure to properly comply with the applicable rule and paid Claimants 100 miles for the holiday. However, claim is made for the actual service Claimants would have performed. The Board holds in accordance with a prior award and finds that Claimants should be paid as though they had worked the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3926-Award 6
Neutral: Jack W. Cassle
Parties: UTU vs. Denver and Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1986-10-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of various yardmen for one day's pay on two holidays when Carrier arbitrarily moved them from the yard to the road extra board. The Board does not find sufficient evidence to support Organization's contention that the action was to deliberately save payment of holiday pay and holds that Carrier was right when it reduced the extra board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3737-Award 8
Neutral: Pat Cain
Parties: UTU vs. Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1986-01-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakeman for 100 miles each for the December 24 and 25 holiday. Claimants' assignment was cancelled or abolished on the dates in question, however, Claimants performed service immediately prior to and after the holidays and held themselves available on the holiday. The Board holds that Claimants have met the necessary requirements to qualify for holiday pay and this claim is granted.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3737-Award 9
Neutral: Pat Cain
Parties: UTU vs. Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1986-01-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor for 100 miles for the December 24 and 25 holidays. Claimant worked December 23 and was thereafter notified that his assignment was cancelled or abolished for the holidays. With December 26 being a regular off-day, Claimant reported for and worked December 27. The Board finds that Claimant met all the necessary qualifying conditions and since the day after the holiday fell on a day which was not an ordinary work day, the date for availability was automatically moved to December 27.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3778-Award 9
Neutral: Neil P. Speirs
Parties: UTU vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1985-11-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for the time and one-half rate when performing service on a holiday. The Board holds that the provisions of the National Paid Holiday Agreement support the claim when service is performed on one of the holidays listed therein. Also involved in this award is the issue of time limits. Carrier attempted to recover the initial payment of time and one-half claimed without issuing a denial to Claimant and beyond the 60 day limit provided by the rule. The Board holds this action to be improper as this cannot be construed as an overpayment resulting from accounting or technical error.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1981-Award 498
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific - Pacific
Award Date: 1985-09-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for 100 miles at the overtime rate for service performed on a holiday. Claimant was called from the extra list to fill a vacancy in local freight service and in addition to the regular pay for the assignment, receive payment of a basic day for holiday pay. Carrier alleges that the basic day was paid in error and Claimant was not entitled to such payment as he did not meet the qualifications of the National Agreement. Organization argues that the rule relied upon applies only to regularly assigned employees and since Claimant was an extra employee the 100 mile confinement does not apply. The Board holds with the Organization and finds that, based upon the language of the agreement, there is no restriction limiting compensation to those cases where an extra engineer's run is 100 miles or less.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3303-Award 23
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1985-08-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yardman for eight hours holiday pay. Claimant was working from the extra board and as a result of his having laid off sick, he did not mark up on the day immediately preceding the holiday until 11:00 a.m. He did perform service on the holiday and the day after. Organization argues that Claimant was available for service on the day before the holiday and there is nothing to show that he would have been called for any service between 12:01 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. when he marked up. The Board finds, however, that by failing to be available for the full calendar day immediately prior to the holiday, Claimant did not satisfy the necessary qualifying requirements.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3303-Award 35
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1985-08-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Brakeman for holiday pay and time and one-half for service performed on the holiday. Claimant was displaced from his assignment and as a result did not perform service on the day before the holiday due to not having sufficient rest for the assignment to which he placed himself. The Board holds that Claimant could have placed himself to a position which would have enabled him to work on the qualifying day and entitle him to the holiday pay claimed. His failure to do so was of his own accord and this claim must be denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3822-Award 5
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific Eastern Lines
Award Date: 1985-07-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: The Board answers a Question at Issue regarding the Carrier's abolishment of Fireman positions, independent of other crew members, so as to avoid holiday pay at the time and one-half rate in favor of the Organization and answers a Question at Issue involving the propriety of a notice instructing firemen not to perform certain tasks requiring payment of an arbitrary in favor of the Carrier. The Board holds that Section 1 of Article III of the 1972 National Manning Agreement and Article VIII of the September 14, 1968 National Agreement support the position of the Organization that Carrier cannot abolish the assignment of a crew member independent of others and have the remainder of the crew perform their normal duties. However, where agreement provisions require payments of arbitraries when individuals are required to perform certain work tasks, the Carrier may properly issue instructions requiring them not to do so.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 2880
Neutral: H. Raymond Cluster
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago and North Western
Award Date: 1984-12-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a Conductor and Brakeman for holiday pay on December 25 and January 1. Claimants were regularly assigned to a local freight operating 57 miles on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and operating 105 miles on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Organization relies on a January 1, 1968 Memorandum of Agreement. However, the Board finds it inapplicable here since the assignment on the days preceding the holidays did not work 100 miles or less.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 949-Award 22
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Chicago and Illinois Midland
Award Date: 1984-11-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of two (2) brakemen for holiday pay on December 25. Claimants were called from the Chain Gang Pool and performed service between Shops and Peoria and return on December 24 and 26. The distance between Shops and Peoria is 84 miles and Claimants contend that since the run was less than 100 miles they are entitled to holiday pay. Carrier contends that the crew was in turnaround service and therefore run 168 miles. Further, the applicable agreement provides that crews will not be paid less than 100 miles each direction when called for turnaround service out of Shops. The Board holds that the evidence and facts of record indicate that the Claimants were not limited to a run of 100 miles or less on the qualifying days and the claim is denied.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 23699
Neutral: Martin F. Scheinman
Parties: BLE vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1984-09-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for 100 miles holiday pay. Organization contends that Claimant's run was less than 100 miles, therefore paid on a daily basis without a mileage component, and he satisfied all other requirements to be eligible for holiday pay. The Board holds that while Claimant did satisfy the other eligibility requirements, he was paid with a mileage component and not on a daily basis.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3195-Award 133
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk and Western
Award Date: 1984-08-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Conductor and Brakemen for 100 miles at local freight rate for service performed on Washington's Birthday. Claimant's assignment is advertised to run a distance of 140 miles, however, Organization has presented evidence that the run has not exceeded 100 miles in the last four (4) years. The Board holds that although the runs may be assigned over 100 miles, if they are in effect confined to 100 miles, the employees are entitled to holiday pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3290-Award 15
Neutral: Robert E. Peterson
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Baltimore and Ohio
Award Date: 1984-02-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yard Helper for time and one-half for service performed on a holiday. Claimant, an extra yard service employee, was called to perform road service on the holiday. The Board holds in accordance with prior awards and finds that Claimant has qualified for holiday pay in accordance with the applicable agreements.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4814
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific - PL
Award Date: 1983-06-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Trainman claim for holiday pay sustained on basis that he was available for service on qualifying day following holiday, even though he was displaced on said qualifying day.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5343
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1983-06-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for 100 miles holiday pay and 8 hours at the applicable yard rate for service performed on December 25th, and 100 miles at the applicable yard rate for December 26th, in lieu of compensation previously allowed. Claimant performed service on his regularly assigned yard job on December 24th and 25th and was thereafter displaced. However, he failed to call the Crew Dispatcher as requested so as to be advised of his displacement which resulted in his reporting for duty on December 26th and being unable to work. He subsequently placed himself and next performed service on December 27th. The Board finds that Claimant's action made him "not available" on a qualifying day for holiday pay and his failure to qualify for holiday pay was of his own doing.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2212-Award 16
Neutral: Irving T. Bergman
Parties: UTU vs. Portland Terminal
Award Date: 1983-05-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Switch Foreman for eight (8) hours' holiday pay. The holiday fell during Claimant's vacation period and Claimant was advised of being displaced prior to completion of his vacation. In accordance with the rules, Claimant bumped to an assignment that did not work the day immediately after his vacation, because of the rest days of the assignment. However, Claimant could have exercised his seniority to an assignment which worked the day after his vacation. The Board finds that by so doing, Claimant did not make himself available for service on the first work day immediately following his vacation and, therefore, did not qualify for the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3159-Award 1
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1983-02-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for 100 miles holiday pay. Claimant worked from a common extra list protecting both road and yard service. He worked 11 starts during the preceding 30 days immediately prior to the holiday, performed yard service on the day before the holiday, was available for service on the holiday and was called for and performed service on the day after the holiday. Carrier denied the claim on the basis that he was not available for service on the day after the holiday. The Board finds no support for this argument and holds that the claimant was "available" within the meaning of the rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 3159-Award 8
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1983-02-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for 100 miles holiday pay when required to perform road wrecker service on the holiday and day after, while working from a common road/yard extra list, in accordance with Award No. 1.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2236-Award 17
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor, Brakeman and Flagman for one (1) day's pay at yard rates for Good Friday Holiday. Because of a national coal strike, Claimants' regular assignment was not operated between February 28, 1978 and April 6, 1978, and Claimants did not exercise their seniority to another position. Organization contends that Claimants are entitled to holiday pay for March 24, 1978, in that they performed service on the last work day of their assignment before its discontinuance and the first work day after it had been re-established. The Board finds that Claimants cannot be considered to have been available for service when they failed to exercise seniority after their regular assignment was cancelled.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2236-Award 22
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of Conductors and Brakemen for holiday pay on the basis of the findings of Award No. 17 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2236-Award 23
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of Conductors and Brakemen for holiday pay on the basis of the findings of Award No. 17 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2236-Award 24
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of Conductors and Brakemen for holiday pay on the basis of the findings of Award No. 17 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2236-Award 25
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of Conductors and Brakemen for holiday pay on the basis of the findings of Award No. 17 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2236-Award 26
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of Conductors and Brakemen for holiday pay on the basis of the findings of Award No. 17 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2236-Award 27
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Western Maryland Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1983-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claims of Conductors and Brakemen for holiday pay on the basis of the findings of Award No. 17 of this Board.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2956-Award 26
Neutral: Herbert L. Marx, Jr.
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1983-01-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for holiday pay at the applicable rate for service performed January 1, 1979. Claimant, holding seniority as a Yardmaster, was called and accepted work in that capacity from December 18 to December 31, 1978. Thereafter, he performed service as yardman on January 1 and 2, 1979. Carrier contends that Claimant failed to meet the requirements of the agreement since he did not perform service as a yardman on the day immediately prior to the holiday. The Board finds this position unreasonable. Claimant legitimately holds seniority in two different types of service and could not have been expected to do other than he did.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 23408
Neutral: Francis X. Quinn
Parties: UTU vs. Seaboard Air Line
Award Date: 1982-12-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of two Trainmen for eight (8) hours holiday pay. The Board finds that Claimants were not assigned to a local freight run that was limited to 100 miles or less and was not paid on a daily basis without a mileage component. Therefore, the claim is without merit.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1890-Award 31
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1982-09-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer for time and one-half for service performed on a holiday. Claimant was assigned to the Engineer's Extra List, protecting both road and yard vacancies, and on the date in question was used in road service on a turn-around assignment totaling 107.4 miles. Carrier relies on an award on this property involving a similar dispute in denying this claim. The Board holds that award to be palpably erroneous. Here Claimant qualified for holiday pay by being credited with 11 or more yard days in the 30 calendar days immediately preceding the holiday, and under the rule he ". . . shall be paid at the rate of time and one-half for all services performed on the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2289-Award 76
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Houston Belt & Terminal Rwy. Co.
Award Date: 1982-05-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Extra Yardman for a day's pay at the applicable rate for not being allowed Holiday Pay. Carrier contends that this claim falls because of Article IV, Section 3(b)(3), of the April 5, 1957 Agreement, as amended by Article I of the November 30, 1960 Agreement, in that Claimant was not credited with yard service on eleven (11) or more of the thirty (30) calendar days immediately preceding the holiday. The Board finds that Claimant qualified for the holiday under Section 3(b)(2) of the above agreements, as he was available for service the day before and the day after the holiday and performed service on the holiday. Further, if "all like claims of record" are identical to the instant claim, they too are likewise sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2791-Award 6
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Award Date: 1982-04-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for holiday pay. The question to be answered in determining this claim is whether or not the time spent on vacation is to be included or excluded when determining the qualifying factor set forth in Note 2, Paragraph (b), of Section 2 of the Vacation Agreement. The Board finds that the vacation period should be excluded in determining the thirty (30) day period in question. It may be fairly inferred from the agreement that vacation time is not to be used to defeat a claim for holiday pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2425-Award 17
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1982-03-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Brakeman for holiday pay on three (3) dates. The Board finds that Claimant, a regularly assigned employee, properly exercised his seniority under the Agreement and qualified for the holiday pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2748-Award 2
Neutral: William E. Fredenberger, Jr.
Parties: UTU vs. Minneapolis, Northfield Southern
Award Date: 1982-03-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of various employees for holiday pay when Carrier annulled their assignments. Claimants were extra board employees, protecting both road and yard service, and on claim dates were filling temporary road vacancies. As such, Carrier contends that they cannot be considered as "regularly assigned employees" which would qualify them for holiday pay. Organization cites an award on this property involving the identical issue, as in this case, and the Board finds that decision to be well reasoned and in no way can it be considered erroneous.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2997-Award 2
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Delray Connecting RR Co.
Award Date: 1982-03-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Yardman for holiday pay when not notified of furlough. Carrier contends that Claimant was orally notified of his furlough on December 23rd. Claimant denies he was so notified. On December 26th, when Claimant was called for service, he was handed a furlough notice dated December 23rd. The Board finds that Claimant's availability for work is assumed from the usual practice of being available for work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1872-Award 24
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1982-03-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Conductor for one day holiday pay for working Good Friday. Carrier contends Claimant was working unassigned pool service on the date of claim and not miscellaneous service as contended by the Organization. The Board finds that Claimant was working in unassigned pool service and such service is not a qualifying class of service for paid holiday compensation.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 23308
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: BLE vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1982-03-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for one basic day holiday pay and 9 hours and 10 minutes at the overtime rate instead of compensation allowed by Carrier. Carrier denies this claim on the basis that Claimant, assigned to a common extra board protecting both road and yard service, failed to render compensated service on 11 of the 30 days immediately preceding the holiday. Organization contends that Claimant was unable to qualify for holiday pay by working 11 days in the 30 days immediately preceding the holiday through no fault of his own inasmuch as he had been serving a 30-day suspension during that period. The Board finds no merit to the Organization's contention and since Claimant did not qualify under the provisions of the agreement, this claim must be denied.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 5309
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU vs. Southern Pacific (Western)
Award Date: 1982-01-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Brakeman for time and one-half for service performed, plus 100 miles' holiday pay in lieu of compensation allowed. Claimant was an extra employee used to fill a vacancy on an assignment, governed by road rules, on a holiday. The Board finds that in view of the particular rules and practices in effect on the property the filling of this vacancy does not qualify Claimant to the holiday pay provisions.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2583-Award 14
Neutral: Neil P. Speirs
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Co.
Award Date: 1981-08-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Trainmen for additional compensation at time and one-half rate because of service performed on a holiday. Organization contends Claimants are entitled to time and one-half rate for deadheading after being released from service under the Hours of Service Law, fifteen (15) minute arbitrary for registering off duty and eight (8) hours, five (5) minutes when required to operate past the established turning point of the assignment. The Board finds that Claimants were properly compensated under the pro-rata pay provisions of each of the applicable schedule rules.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2716-Award 14
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: BLE vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-04-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Engineer and Fireman for eight (8) hours' pay at the time and one-half rate for the Thanksgiving Day holiday. Carrier advised Claimants the day before the holiday that their assignment would not work. Employees contend that crews must be given 48 hours advance notice of any change in assignment in accordance with the Schedule Agreement. The Board finds that the agreement was violated in that Carrier did not comply with the 48-hour requirement.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 23246
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: BLE vs. Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
Award Date: 1981-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for holiday pay on New Years Day. Carrier issued a bulletin abolishing Claimant's regular assignment at the completion of the tour of duty on December 30, and on the same bulletin, re-established the job on January 2. The Carrier contends that when this assignment was abolished, Claimant did not place himself on any service until 2:55 p.m., December 31, and was therefore not available for service on the entire qualifying day immediately preceding the holiday. The Organization contends that Claimant did not mark off duty on the day preceding the holiday or on the holiday, and that he was available for service on the days in question, but the Carrier never called him. The Board finds that there is nothing in the Agreement to obligate Claimant to mark up for other service, such as the extra board, on December 31, after Carrier abolished his assignment for that day. The facts evidence that Claimant never marked off duty, nor did Carrier call Claimant for service which he failed to accept. The Board finds that Claimant was available for service on the day immediately preceding the holiday and is entitled to holiday pay as claimed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2709-Award 2
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1981-01-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a yard crew for a yard day at the time and one-half rate when their regular assignment was annulled on a holiday and another yard crew performed over seven hours working on the work normally performed by Claimants. In sustaining the claims, the Board finds the Carrier can annul an assignment on a holiday, but cannot then transfer the work belonging to the assignment and have it performed by others.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2200-Award 9
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1980-11-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains in part the claim of a Hostler by allowing one day's pay in lieu of the two and one-half days' pay claimed when not properly notified of the annulment of his assignment on a holiday. Claimant had previously been allowed one day's pay for the holiday and was claiming an additional day at the time and one-half rate which the Board allowed at the pro rata rate.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2280-Award 23
Neutral: Fred Blackwell
Parties: UTU-E vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1980-10-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an Engineer for the time and one-half rate for yard service performed on a holiday. The issue in this case is whether or not the qualification of holiday pay is a condition precedent to an entitlement to the time and one-half rate of pay for working on a holiday. The Board held that the critical fact is the Claimant performed work on the holiday, and that fact alone entitles him to time and one-half for such work under the Holiday Agreement.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 23227
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: BLE vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1980-09-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claims of various Engineers for holiday pay. Claimants had completed Carrier's Engineer Training Program and were assigned to combination road-yard extra board, but were confined to yard service because they had not yet qualified for road service. Since Claimants were confined to yard service and were available for yard service on December 24 and 25 and were also available the day before and following the holidays, the Board finds Claimants qualified for holiday pay and their claims must be sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1549-Award 1
Neutral: David P. Twomey
Parties: UTU-C vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1980-08-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a regularly assigned pool freight trainman for holiday pay when called and used as an extra Conductor in local freight service. Claimant protected a temporary vacancy on a regular assignment on a qualifying local freight run of less than 100 miles on the day before, the Birthday Holiday and the day after. The Board finds the agreed-upon interpretation, Question and Answer No. 2, between the Carrier and the ORC&B, interpreting the June 25, 1964 Agreement, requires the claim to be sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2739-Award 7
Neutral: Don B. Hays
Parties: UTU vs. Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Award Date: 1980-05-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Yard Foreman and crew for time and one-half due to their assignment being annulled on a holiday and the work being performed by another crew. The Board finds from the record that there is no substantive difference in the yard work performed by the two yard assignments here involved and there is no contractual basis for the claim presented.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1312-Award 528
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Baltimore and Ohio
Award Date: 1980-05-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Road Conductor-Pilot for holiday pay. Neutral finds that Claimant, working regular assignment in Road-Pilot service, was paid Road Conductors' rate of pay and since through-freight service employees are not eligible for holiday pay when performing service without a mileage component, claim is denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2336-Award 2
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1980-03-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yard crew for a day's pay at the pro rata rate in lieu of the time and one-half rate claimed, when not properly notified of an annulment of their regular assignment on a scheduled work day. Carrier contended Claimants had been properly notified by bulletin on the day preceding the date of annulment. On the morning of the date of annulment, Carrier's Crew Dispatcher called each member of the crew to assure that they understood their assignment was not going to be worked on that date. The Board held that, absent a showing of the bulletin involved, we conclude that said bulletin did not include Claimant's assignment for if it did there would be no need for the Crew Caller to have made the telephone call.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 23198
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1980-03-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of a Yard Engineer for the time and one-half rate of pay for service performed on a holiday. Claimant, a regularly assigned Yard Engineer, performed service on the day preceding the holiday and on the holiday, but was called for jury service on the day following the holiday. In sustaining the claim, the Board finds that it is assumed that claimant would have worked on the day following the holiday, had he not been called to perform jury service and that an employee should not be penalized for complying with the law.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 23202
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1980-03-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustain claims similar to that in Award 23198, above.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2273-Award 17
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-S vs. Los Angeles Junction Rwy.
Award Date: 1980-03-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of a Yard Helper at helper rate for the Good Friday Holiday. Claimant was regularly assigned Sunday through Thursday, he was displaced on Good Friday morning and could not be contacted until Sunday morning. Carrier contends that Claimant failed to meet the qualifying criteria for the holiday pay as set forth by the rules. The Board finds under the rules, the Claimant reverted to the status of an extra man when he was displaced and did not immediately exercise his seniority. The Claimant did not qualify as a regularly assigned employee, as he lost that status, and did not qualify as an extra man because he did not work or remain available as required by the rules.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 157
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1979-08-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of Engineer and Fireman sustained for one (1) day when they were not notified that their job was laid in on Memorial Day holiday. Claimants and remainder of crew reported for duty at the proper time and place for their regular assignment on the holiday, at which time they were advised by the yardmaster that their assignment was laid in. Carrier's contention that their Superintendent issued a bulletin listing the annulled assignments several days before the holiday, thus eliminating the need of the crew caller to notify each individual, is rejected by the neutral due to lack of supportive evidence that such bulletin had in fact been posted.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2210-Award 3
Neutral: A. Thomas Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Green Bay and Western
Award Date: 1979-02-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: The four (4) dollar differential provided engineers working without a fireman (helper) is denied engineer-claimant as basic holiday pay when he performed no service on the holiday. Neutral finds that the four (4) dollars applies to the basic day only when actually worked and differentials or arbitraries are not included in basic days under the holiday agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1479-Award 2
Neutral: Morris L. Myers
Parties: UTU vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1979-01-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor was not notified that his yard assignment was annulled on a holiday and reported for work. Carrier allowed payment of eight (8) hours at pro-rata rate for the job and eight (8) hours at pro-rata rate as basic holiday pay. Claimant denied an additional day at punitive rate; one (1) hour at footboard yardmaster's rate; and one-half (1/2) hour air pay. Neutral recognizes carrier allowance as proper since claimant performed no work.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2149-Award 25
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Santa Fe - Coast Lines
Award Date: 1979-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer assigned to common road-yard extra list and otherwise qualified for holiday pay is sustained for payment of time and one-half when he worked a turnaround local freight assignment of 100 miles without a mileage component on the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2194-Award 5
Neutral: Bernard Cushman
Parties: UTU vs. Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern
Award Date: 1979-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Four (4) claims of brakemen are sustained for holiday pay. Neutral finds that claimants were eligible, without the necessary qualification of extra men, when they bid in temporary vacancies on a turnaround assignment of less than 100 miles, pool service and a transfer run. Neutral classifies claimants as regularly assigned and not working from a common extra board on claim dates.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 866-Award SUNA-59-W
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: SUNA vs. Burlington Northern Inc.
Award Date: 1979-01-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra yardman sustained for 8 hours basic holiday allowance. Neutral finds that since claimant was compensated under the merger protective agreement for 11 or more of the 30 days immediately preceding the holiday, such payments were the equivalent of compensation for service under Article I, Section 2(b) (3) of the Agreement. Carrier Members' Dissent Attached.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 23139
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Burlington Northern
Award Date: 1978-12-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer on common extra list, protecting both road and yard service, sustained for holiday pay amounting to 100 miles at yard rate without a fireman. Claimant had performed 11 yard starts in the 30 days immediately preceding the holiday and performed yard service on the holiday. Claimant was available for yard service on the day preceding the holiday and the day following the holiday but on both occasions was required by carrier to perform road service.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2002-Award 1
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1978-06-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardman sustained for a basic day on holiday provided for under local agreement when his regular assignment was annulled. Carrier's attempt to place claim under paid holiday agreement and disallow payment on fact that claimant laid off on the first workday following the holiday negated by the neutral. Board sustains solely on payment required under agreement on the property when claimant's job was annulled and specifically finds that its decision in no way involves an interpretation or ruling on national paid holiday provisions.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2005-Award 2
Neutral: Robert J. Ables
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Former Penn Central
Award Date: 1978-06-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of conductors and brakemen denied for holiday pay when assigned to through freight pool of 100 miles or less and paid without a mileage component. Neutral finds that claimants were not "regularly assigned."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 2050-Award 5
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU-C,E&T vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1978-04-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra road service conductor denied holiday pay when protecting a vacancy and assignment "laid in" on Christmas Holiday. Claimant not qualified due to extra status.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 959-Award 26
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific
Award Date: 1978-04-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Opinion of the neutral member provides that various claims of conductors for 100 miles at the rate of time and one-half for service performed on a holiday are sustained if claimants were on regularly assigned freight runs of 100 miles or less without a mileage component. In the opposite, if claimants were in pool freight service of 100 miles or less without a mileage component the claims are denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 974-Award 11
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1978-04-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra list fireman (helper) denied basic holiday pay and time and one-half for working on the holiday. Claimant worked a hostling assignment on the last workday before the holiday; a yard assignment on the holiday; and a through freight assignment on the first workday following the holiday. Neutral disqualifies due to performance of through freight service on the latter day and completely ignores the provisions of Article I, Section 3 (b) Note - providing that he will be deemed available if he is required by the carrier to perform other service in accordance with rules and practices on the carrier. Neutral's findings must be considered erroneous and in conflict with proper applicability of the agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1146-Award 22
Neutral: Daniel House
Parties: UTU-E vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1978-03-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer denied time and one-half (1-1/2) for working the holiday when he failed to make himself available for work on the day following such holiday. Claimant was displaced from his regular assignment on the day following the holiday and did not mark up for work until he claimed a regular job some four (4) days later. Neutral reasons that claimant did not become available on the day following when he called in order to determine if a job was open upon which he could exercise seniority while at the same time failing to place himself on the extra list.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 204
Neutral: Hubert Wyckoff
Parties: UTU-T vs. Port Terminal
Award Date: 1978-02-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardman denied basic holiday pay. Neutral finds that claimant was taking two (2) days of a previously earned yardmaster's vacation on the day preceding the holiday as well as the holiday. Therefore, claimant cannot assume qualification or eligibility for holiday pay on two (2) separate agreements.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 64-Award 780
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: B.L.E. vs. Southern Pacific - T&L
Award Date: 1978-02-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer denied basic holiday pay at the "no fireman" rate when after being displaced on the first work day following the holiday, he failed to exercise his seniority in sufficient time to allow for service performed on this qualifying day.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 642-Award 199
Neutral: William H. Coburn
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Award Date: 1978-01-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor and brakemen in road freight pool service denied 150 miles' holiday pay, finding that claimants were not regularly assigned despite the fact that the pool assignments were runs of less than 100 miles paid on a daily basis without a mileage component.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 642-Award 194
Neutral: William H. Coburn
Parties: UTU-T&C vs. Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Award Date: 1978-01-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard ground crew sustained for one (1) yard day when carrier annulled their regular assignment on a holiday and an extra work train crew performed yard switching during the first twelve (12) hours which included claimant's regular starting time.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 23047
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Grand Trunk
Award Date: 1978-01-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra engineer, assigned to combination road-yard extra list, denied time and one-half (1/2) for performance of road freight service with a mileage component on the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1332-Award 9
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU-C vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1978-01-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor denied basic holiday pay for his birthday. Claimant was displaced following the performance of service on his birthday and immediately placed himself on another assignment. Nonetheless, he was unable to protect his new assignment on the first work day following the holiday due to insufficient rest under Hours of Service. Neutral considers the reason for his lack of availability as no fault of the carrier.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1631-Award 5
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU-E vs. Illinois Central Gulf
Award Date: 1977-11-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer in pool freight service, otherwise qualified for holiday pay, denied the holiday basic day on neutral's findings that he was not regularly assigned to a run of 100 miles or less without a mileage component. Neutral chooses precedents in opposition to organization's position despite the fact that straightaway pool mileage amounts to only 99 miles.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1863-Award 3
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Union Pacific
Award Date: 1977-11-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Various claims of conductors assigned to turnaround pool freight service denied for holiday pay. Despite the fact that claimants are assigned to a short pool with roundtrip mileage of 72.6 miles and therefore are normally paid on the basis of 100 miles without a mileage component, neutral denies on findings that claimants in pool service are not regularly assigned and may be used for more than one trip allowing mileage in excess of 100 miles.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1935-Award 12
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: UTU-E vs. Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1977-09-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claim of an extra engineer for the punitive or time and one-half rate of pay for service performed on a holiday in local service. The Board finds that Claimant was an extra board engineer protecting vacancies in both yard and road service and had performed 12 days of yard service in the 30-day period immediately preceding the holiday and that the Agreement does not limit the "service" to only yard service.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1332-Award 5
Neutral: Joseph A. Sickles
Parties: UTU-C vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1977-08-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Conductor sustained in claim for basic holiday pay while on vacation. Facts indicate that on the last work day prior to the holiday he worked as a yardmaster and on the first work day following the holiday he worked as a regularly assigned conductor.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 298
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1977-08-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman denied basic holiday pay of 100 miles when assigned to work train service. Neutral finds that regularly assigned work train service is not a class of service enumerated by Article I, Section 2, of the June 25, 1964 National Agreement establishing eligibility for holiday pay. Similarly, neutral decides that regularly assigned work train service is not miscellaneous service within the meaning of the holiday agreement and employees assigned thereto are not eligible for holiday pay irrespective of whether confined to 100 miles or less.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1907-Award 5
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C,T&Y vs. Santa Fe - Western Lines
Award Date: 1977-07-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra yardman sustained in claim for basic holiday pay. Claimant performed service the day preceding the holiday; on the holiday for which he was paid time and one-half; and the day following the holiday. Carrier refused payment of basic holiday pay contending that Article I, Section 3 (b) (3), of the National Holiday Rule as amended by Article X of the July 17, 1968 BRT National Agreement applies. Neutral finds that claimant satisfied necessary qualification for basic holiday pay through compliance with Section 3 (b) (2) and it was not necessary that he receive compensation for yard service credited on 11 or more of the 30 calendar days immediately preceding the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1459-Award 60
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1977-06-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer regularly assigned to through freight service operating 100 or less without a mileage component denied holiday pay. Neutral finds that claimant lacks eligibility for any holiday compensation through proper interpretation of Article I, Section 2 of the June 25, 1964 National Agreement despite the fact that he was otherwise qualified under the agreement and performed service on the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1630-Award 21
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-T vs. Former Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1977-05-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of yardman denied for basic holiday pay. While claimant was marked up for service on the day preceding the holiday; the holiday; and the day following the holiday, he was without credit for 11 compensated yard days in the 30 days preceding the holiday because of vacation. Neutral rules that the June 25, 1964 National Agreement did not remove the requirements of the previous holiday provisions requiring 11 in 30 for yardmen irrespective of vacation time.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1467-Award 14
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1977-05-06 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra yard service fireman (helper) denied time and one-half when working New Year's Holiday. Claimant denied for the reason that he was not available for work on the day preceding or the day following the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1662-Award 1
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Akron, Canton & Youngstown
Award Date: 1977-03-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of extra engineers and firemen (helpers) assigned to a common road-yard extra list denied for holiday pay. Neutral's findings deny claim for the reason that claimants were not credited with compensation for yard or hostling service on 11 or more of the 30 days immediately preceding the holiday.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 172
Neutral: Hubert Wyckoff
Parties: UTU vs. Port Terminal RR Assoc.
Award Date: 1977-03-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of an Extra Yardman for eight hours at time and one-half in lieu of straight time allowed when called to fill a vacancy at 4:30 a.m. on a holiday on an assignment that had commenced work at 10:30 p.m. on the day before the holiday. The Neutral held that for holiday pay purposes the extra man becomes a member of the regular crew and regardless of his actual starting time, his service was properly credited to the day before the holiday along with the rest of the crew.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1588-Award 17
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1977-03-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Fireman (helper) denied basic holiday pay when he changed status from a regular to an extra employee on the qualifying day immediately preceding the holiday. Employees contend that the change in status was not "voluntary" under the literal language and interpretation of Note 1., Section 3 of the Holiday Agreement since claimant's regular assignment ceased to exist and he was required to mark up as an extra man in order to work. Neutral refused acceptance of employee's contention and in the same manner refuses interpretation of the language ". . . Voluntarily changes service status . .."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1467-Award 15
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU-E vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1977-03-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra yard service fireman (helper) denied time and one-half when working New Year's Holiday. Claimant denied for the reason that he was not available for work on the day preceding or the day following the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1712-Award 26
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-E vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1977-02-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for holiday pay for Labor Day, September 2. Claimant was not regularly assigned, worked the day following the holiday, but did not work either the day preceding the holiday or the holiday, choosing to lay in although he had a free exercise of seniority to displace on these days. The Neutral held, Claimant was not on a regular assignment nor did he work in qualifying service on the day preceding the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1483-Award 36
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Maine Central - Portland Term.
Award Date: 1977-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Trainman assigned to the spareboard sustained in claim for holiday pay at time and one-half rate. Claimant was called from the spareboard to cover a qualified local freight assignment operating from an outlying point and worked the holiday only. Neutral sustains on determination that claimant assumed the conditions applicable to the regularly assigned brakeman he relieved.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1483-Award 37
Neutral: Robert M. O'Brien
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Maine Central - Portland Term.
Award Date: 1977-01-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Spareboard trainman as claimant in Award No. 36, this board, sustained for basic holiday pay of 100 miles on the same date, same assignment and with same findings as previously stated.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1565-Award 17
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa FE-CL
Award Date: 1976-12-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer and fireman (helper) sustained in claim for holiday pay. Claimants, as a crew, worked a turnaround through freight assignment, bifurcated in the amount of eighty-two (82) miles on the outgoing leg of the trip and seventy-two (72) miles on the return leg of the trip. Carrier contended that claimants were not assigned to a run of 100 miles or less without a mileage component since they were paid two (2) constructive terminal miles at the same point constituting the initial and final terminal as well as the turning point. Neutral sustains on reasoning that the constructive terminal miles do not change the mileage component of the trip which governs.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1330-Award 27
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Former Erie-Lackawanna
Award Date: 1976-11-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra list engineer denied holiday pay for yard service performed on his birthday. Neutral's denial founded on the fact that claimant moved from his regularly assigned road fireman's job to the engineers' extra list three (3) days prior to the claim date. Therefore, claimant failed to qualify because he did not work 11 starts as an extra engineer during the 30-day period immediately preceding his vacation.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1588-Award 18
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-11-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Fireman for Holiday Pay. When displaced from a regular hostler position, he marked up on the fireman's extra board and was used in through freight service on a qualifying day. The Board held that Claimant made no effort to maintain a regular assignment to which seniority would have entitled him and he therefore voluntarily changed his service status.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 959-Award 34
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-E&C vs. Georgia Southern & Florida
Award Date: 1976-10-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Extra Conductor for eight hours and 30 minutes (8'30") at the time and one-half rate and holiday-birthday pay. Claimant worked on a road switcher assignment without a mileage component on the day before his birthday and the day after his birthday. The Board held that the great majority of referees have accepted the opinion that the extra man takes all the conditions of the assignment.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1405-Award 23
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: BLE vs. ConRail (former Lehigh Valley)
Award Date: 1976-10-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer and fireman (helper) denied basic holiday pay and time and one-half for services performed on a road freight assignment on the holiday. Neutral finds that the assignment was bulletined for 106 miles and paid 106 miles each day.
Therefore, claimants were not confined to a run of 100 miles or less, nor paid on a daily basis without a mileage component.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 64-Award 768
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific T&L
Award Date: 1976-10-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Engineer for 100 miles at the time and one-half rate. Claimant was used off the extra board to cover a yard assignment on the holiday. Carrier argues that Claimant did not render yard service on eleven (11) days of the thirty (30) days preceding the holiday and therefore did not qualify for the punitive rate. Organization maintains that the period of time that Claimant was on vacation must be excluded in computing the thirty (30) days preceding the holiday. The Board finds no support for the contention of the Organization and holds that Claimant failed to qualify for holiday pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1565-Award 16
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa FE-CL
Award Date: 1976-09-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denies claim of Fireman regularly assigned in pool freight service for holiday pay, the Referee finding that it was his considered view that employees in through freight service was excluded from holiday pay under the conditions contained in Section 2(a) of Article I of the 1964 National Agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1330-Award 21
Neutral: Nicholas H. Zumas
Parties: BLE vs. Former Erie-Lackawanna
Award Date: 1976-09-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Regularly assigned yard engineer sustained in the amount of basic holiday pay. Neutral finds that despite the fact claimant's job was annulled on the day following the holiday, local rules provide that claimant is to be placed first out on the extra list. Carrier's position that claimant failed to notify the caller that he wished to be placed on the extra list and was therefore unavailable on the qualifying day is without merit.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1160-Award 182
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-S vs. Southern Pacific
Award Date: 1976-08-03 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of Herder for an additional day's pay at the yardmaster overtime rate when required to perform yardmaster service on a holiday, work normally performed by an engine foreman at the footboard yardmaster's rate.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1565-Award 15
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Award Date: 1976-07-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for basic holiday pay in behalf of extra fireman (helper) sustained. Claimant although assigned to fireman's extra list was called and performed service as an emergency engineer on a local freight assignment of 100 miles or less without a mileage component on the work day immediately preceding the holiday; was available but did not perform service on the holiday; and worked the aforementioned local as an emergency engineer again on the work day immediately following the holiday. Board sustains as result of precedent award rendered on Santa Fe by Public Law Board No. 988 with similar circumstances.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1581-Award 2
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific - T&L Lines
Award Date: 1976-06-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant engineer was regularly assigned in yard service 11:59 p.m. to 7:59 a.m. On January 1, 1973, it was necessary that he lay off in order to be available for jury duty at 8:00 a.m. on January 2nd. He was released from jury duty at 5:00 p.m. but did not report for his regular assignment on this date on a contention that he would not be rested. He claimed a basic day for both January 1st and 2nd and an additional day at time and one-half for the holiday rate of pay lost on January 1st. His claim for the basic day on January 1st was allowed but his claim for a day's pay on January 2nd was denied. The Board holding that claimant could and should have protected his regular assignment on January 2, 1973 and his failure to do so was his own option.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1522-Award 2
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-05-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for basic holiday pay in behalf of fireman (helper) denied. Holiday occurred while claimant was on vacation and apparently he was displaced before vacation was completed and exercised his seniority to a pool freight assignment of more than 100 miles with a mileage component. Board determines lack of qualification in view of act claimant did not perform service on a "covered" job on first work day following completion of vacation.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1435-Award 27
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1976-05-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant yard brakeman sustained for time and one-half for working holiday, despite the fact that on the day following the holiday he was not available for the full tour of duty since he laid off sick following one (1) hour and one-half (1/2) on duty.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1516-Award 22
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU vs. Union Pacific Railroad
Award Date: 1976-05-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakeman denied time and one-half for working his birthday on a "beet run" without a mileage component when following such tour of duty he was displaced and exercised seniority to a local with a mileage component which he worked on the day immediately following his holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1180-Award 3
Neutral: Martin I. Rose
Parties: BLE vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1976-04-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Neutral sustains a question at issue, in accord with what he refers to as a "legion of previous awards", ruling that Article I, Section 2 of the June 25, 1964 Agreement applies to regularly assigned engineers in through freight service on runs of 100 miles or less.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1302-Award 135
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU-E vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1976-04-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer claimant denied basic holiday pay, the holiday occurring during his vacation, and his failure to work the day immediately following his vacation due to UTU-E strike.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 394-Award 51
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1976-02-12 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra brakeman covering a vacancy on a road switcher operated on an hourly basis without a mileage component sustained in claim for holiday pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1500-Award 8
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. Illinois Central Gulf
Award Date: 1976-01-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for time and one-half in behalf of extra brakeman denied. Claimant performed service on his birthday holiday on a local freight assignment of less than 100 miles at an outlying point in a "hold down" status and board determines that he worked job as an extra man and was not regularly assigned.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 887-Award 98
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: BLE vs. St. Louis-San Francisco
Award Date: 1975-12-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra engineer who performed service on a road switcher on a holiday sustained for time and one-half for all such services performed. Job worked was paid on the basis of 100 miles without a mileage component, and referee finds that even though claimant was assigned to a combination road-yard extra list the payment of time and one-half for holiday work is not restricted to performance of yard service only.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1128-Award 19
Neutral: William M. Edgett
Parties: UTU-E vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1975-11-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for holiday pay denied in case of fireman (helper) assigned to pool freight service operating 100 miles or less. Referee rules assignment in pool freight service does not constitute a regular assignment for purposes of the holiday agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 894-Award 61
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. St. Louis-San Francisco
Award Date: 1975-11-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra engineer denied holiday pay on the basis that vacation allowance cannot be considered as "compensation" credited for yard or hostler service in order to satisfy the 11-day in 30-day requirement immediately preceding the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1495-Award 1
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C,E&T vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1975-11-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Train crew in interdivisional pool freight service denied holiday pay since evidence indicates service performed is paid on a mileage basis and on occasion runs exceed 100 miles.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 22896
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: BLE vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1975-10-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yard engineer displaced for only one day, the holiday, called and performed service on other than his regular assignment. Claim sustained for time and one-half, despite carrier claim that he did not perform service on his regular job and was not assigned to the engineer's extra board.
View Award
First Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 22897
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: BLE vs. Seaboard Coast Line
Award Date: 1975-10-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Engineer regularly assigned to road switcher, denied holiday pay when he failed to work the qualifying day preceding the holiday due to the fact that he was held out of service for accumulation of maximum permissible mileage and therefore considered "contractually" unavailable.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 159-Award 217
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & Illinois Midland
Award Date: 1975-09-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant fireman worked the day immediately preceding the day he commenced vacation on a mine run from the extra list. On the first day of his vacation he became regularly assigned to a mine run, for which he was available on the holiday and worked the day following the holiday. Referee sustains claim for basic holiday pay, in denying carrier contention that extra service on the work day immediately prior to his vacation did not satisfy the prior day qualification in view of the fact that on the holiday and the day following he was regularly assigned.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1570-Award 7
Neutral: Arthur T. Van Wart
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Central of Georgia
Award Date: 1975-09-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Numerous time claims of yardmen denied for work lost on assignments which they attempted to place themselves when their regular jobs were "laid in" on a holiday. While claimants were allowed basic holiday pay for their regular jobs which did not work, board determines that under applicable rules yardmen assigned to a job "laid in" on a holiday are not entitled to an exercise of seniority on another job.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1347-Award 7
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1975-06-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains holiday pay claims of unassigned pool service crews operating regularly in local freight or miscellaneous service on runs of less than 100 miles and therefore had no mileage component in their pay structure. Like claims were also sustained by Award Nos. 22 through 31 inclusive.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 423-Award 169
Neutral: Hubert Wyckoff
Parties: UTU-T vs. Port Terminal Railroad
Award Date: 1975-05-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for basic holiday pay sustained in behalf of a yardman who was displaced on the off day of his regular assignment immediately preceding the holiday but due to the failure of the crew caller to notify claimant until late in the evening of the holiday he was unable to place himself.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1347-Award 16
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1975-05-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denied claims for holiday pay to claimants assigned to a road switcher with aggregate mileage of 106 miles. The assignment had previously been assigned to work an aggregate of 99.6 miles and the Organization contends the Carrier readvertised the assignment for the longer mileage for the express purpose of defeating the holiday pay provisions. The Neutral held that while the assignment did not operate over the advertised mileage the claimants accepted the pay of the assignment, 106 miles, and therefore cannot validly maintain that they operated a run of 100 miles or less. Like claims were also denied by Award Nos. 17, 18, 20 and 21.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 854-Award 56
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe-EL
Award Date: 1975-04-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Under local rule providing that an extra man missing a call will be held off board until man who replaced him is again marked up, claimant was held off board first eight hours of January 1. Neutral finds that he was not available full calendar day.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 854-Award 60
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe-EL
Award Date: 1975-04-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Employee splitting vacation paid for three weeks instead of two made claim for additional week's pay. Neutral rules that claimant was inadvertently paid in advance.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 26
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1975-03-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim in behalf of extra engineer for holiday pay at time and one-half when required to work a road freight job on the holiday denied. Employees' contention of qualification as result of claimant performing service on day prior to and day immediately following holiday in addition to working 11 yard days in the 30 days prior to the holiday not acceptable to board. Findings in denial based on board's determination that claimant was not regularly assigned and did not perform work in a "covered" class of service on the holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 787-Award 23
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Chicago & Eastern Illinois
Award Date: 1975-02-25 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim of a road switcher train crew for eight hours at time and one-half for service performed on Thanksgiving holiday. Claimants were assigned to a run with a bulletin mileage in excess of 100 miles but contended they had actually only run in excess of 100 miles once in the past 18 months. The Neutral held that if the assignment runs over 100 miles once in 18 months, it is the same as being confined to 100 miles or less.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1036-Award 125
Neutral: John F. Sembower
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa FE-CL
Award Date: 1974-11-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: In this award, neutral reviews past awards dealing with subject of pool crews being "regularly assigned" for purposes of the holiday rule and sustains claims.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1225-Award 7
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-E vs. Southern Pacific Company-T&L
Award Date: 1974-09-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of fireman sustained for basic holiday pay, the holiday falling during his assigned vacation., Carrier contends failure to qualify on the basis that claimant did not perform 11 yard days in the previous 30 when assigned to the extra list. Board finds qualification requirement on the 11 in 30 should be computed on the 30 days immediately preceding the day vacation commenced.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 1
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1974-09-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for basic holiday pay sustained in case of fireman (helper) assigned to a regular freight job operating 100 miles or less without a mileage component.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 2
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1974-09-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for basic holiday pay denied in case of a fireman (helper) when regular assignment was "laid in" on work day immediately preceding the holiday and claimant did not exercise his seniority in displacing on another yard assignment which did perform service on the qualifying day. Referee rules that claimant did not make himself "available" for purposes of the holiday agreement when he failed to exercise his seniority to a working assignment as previously described.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 638-Award 1
Neutral: John F. Sembower
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1974-05-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant brakeman on a run which converted to local freight a preponderance of the time sustained for payment of time and one-half for working holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1122-Award 7
Neutral: Leo C. Brown
Parties: UTU-T vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1974-03-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains claim for time-and-one-half pay for road service by yardman on common extra list. According to the board, ". . . It would be unreasonable to assume ... the parties intended to restrict their all-inclusive phrase 'all services performed' to yard service only."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1305-Award 25
Neutral: Leverett Edwards
Parties: UTU-E vs. Baltimore & Ohio
Award Date: 1974-03-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim in behalf of engineer and fireman assigned to freight pool which protected service of 100 miles or less without a mileage component sustained for time and one-half when required to perform service on a holiday. Findings in direct conflict with ruling rendered in Award No. 19, Public Law Board No. 1128 above.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1193-Award 1
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: BLE vs. Detroit Terminal
Award Date: 1974-02-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: This decision distinguishes the difference between a brief furlough and annulled assignments. Carrier furloughed a number of engineers just prior to the year end holidays. The bulletined notice of furlough also indicated a return to service date of January 2. Carrier then denied all claims for holiday pay on the grounds the claimants were unavailable for service on the qualifying days. In sustaining the employees' claims, the neutral observed: "The particular facts of this case indicate that the claimants' assignments were merely annulled for a week. On this basis they maintained their employee relationship and must be deemed available. There is no evidence they laid off or otherwise made themselves unavailable."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 347-Award 146
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1974-02-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: In furlough status on qualifying day. Furloughed for a week, claimant was recalled on his birthday, worked, and was paid time and one-half for the service. His claim was for the basic day. Held: "He was not available until reporting time for service after being recalled from furlough status." Denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 238-Award 182
Neutral: Thomas L. Hayes
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1974-01-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: At issue here were a rare mileage component and a description of the disputed run which the board determined to be "miscellaneous service" rather than through-freight service as contended by the carrier. In sustaining the employees' claims for a basic day, the board determined further and more significantly that two isolated instances when the run exceeded 100 miles "were certainly not characteristic of the assignment" and therefore, did not constitute a mileage component.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1122-Award 12
Neutral: Leo C. Brown
Parties: UTU-T vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1973-11-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Switchman on yard extra board who was otherwise qualified for holiday benefit missed a call for road service which is optional rather than mandatory, and carrier therefore refused his claim for basic day because he was unavailable. Neutral, in denying the claim, reasoned: "It must be assumed that claimant who could not be reached for the service for which ... called ... was also unavailable for any service at that time." Employee member dissented.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1088-Award 5
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Green Bay & Western
Award Date: 1973-10-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor denied for holiday pay in the amount of time and one-half. Regular assignments of claimant were scheduled to operate on the holiday and calling times were postponed until after midnight. Neutral reasons that if a call is advanced to a holiday carrier is obliged to allow holiday pay; if a call is set back to the day following the holiday carrier is not required to allow holiday pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1088-Award 9
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Green Bay & Western
Award Date: 1973-10-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor denied for holiday pay in the amount of time and one-half. Regular assignments of claimant were scheduled to operate on the holiday and calling times were postponed until after midnight. Neutral reasons that if a call is advanced to a holiday carrier is obliged to allow holiday pay; if a call is set back to the day following the holiday carrier is not required to allow holiday pay.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 1108-Award 20
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: UTU-E vs. Lake Terminal
Award Date: 1973-09-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Same situation as Public Law Board No. 347, Award No. 146, above except for an implementing agreement which provides that employees furloughed during the pay period in which the holiday falls shall be considered eligible under the national agreement if they perform service during the pay period. Claims sustained for those furloughed employees who did not absent themselves voluntarily and were otherwise qualified under the national agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 163-Award 66
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: UTU-E vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1973-05-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained time-and-one-half pay to an engine crew whose assignment was annulled for the holiday and the work transferred to others. Held: "The Agreement does not provide that when an assignment is annulled the carrier may transfer the work ... the claimants were entitled to ... ".
View Award
Public Law Board No. 163-Award 69
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: UTU-E vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1973-05-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustains the claims of an engine crew regularly assigned in through-freight service to a regular, designated train. Precedent on property cited.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 163-Award 70
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: UTU-E vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1973-05-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: This decision is companion in all respects but one to Award No. 69, above. The key issue here was the regular status of a pool crew assignment. While the claimants were regularly assigned, they did not hold any specific or designated train, therefore their claims were denied.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 41-Award 2372
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific-T&L
Award Date: 1972-07-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor and brakeman for time and one-half for all services performed on a recognized holiday. Claim made and progressed for time and one-half for all services performed as well as all arbitraries allowed under schedule rules. Carrier allowed one basic day at time and one-half. Upon basis of time limit provisions and understanding reached between carriers and former ORC&B, conductor's claim was denied. Claim for time and one-half for switcher performed sustained. Claim for time and one-half for arbitraries denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 794-Award 23
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1972-03-07 00:00:00
Synopsis: Was vague on facts and details in denying penalty rate for assignment "not confined to 100 miles or less."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 572-Award 22
Neutral: John H. Dorsey
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Award Date: 1972-02-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimants failed to meet any of the three requisites in Section 3.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 572-Award 18
Neutral: John H. Dorsey
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Award Date: 1972-02-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained basic day to extra employees who performed yard service on days immediately preceding and following a holiday and were available on holiday as prescribed in Sec. 3-b-1.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 572-Award 20
Neutral: John H. Dorsey
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Award Date: 1972-02-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimants failed to meet any of the three requisites in Section 3.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 572-Award 21
Neutral: John H. Dorsey
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Award Date: 1972-02-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained basic day to extra employees who performed yard service on days immediately preceding and following a holiday and were available on holiday as prescribed in Sec. 3-b-1.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 572-Award 19
Neutral: John H. Dorsey
Parties: UTU vs. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Award Date: 1972-02-11 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained basic day to extra employees who performed yard service on days immediately preceding and following a holiday and were available on holiday as prescribed in Sec. 3-b-1.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 707-Award 7
Neutral: Howard A. Johnson
Parties: UTU-E vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1972-01-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Ruled that through-freight service on qualifying day did not cancel entitlement to time-and-one-half holiday pay of regularly assigned, local freight who worked holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 610-Award 19
Neutral: David Dolnick
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Milwaukee Road
Award Date: 1971-12-16 00:00:00
Synopsis: A denial, involved yardmen's "availability". Carrier annulled all yard service for the holiday but indicated assignments would work if business warranted. Claimants were informed verbally their job would work. However, they declined, therefore were "unavailable."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 364-Award 101
Neutral: William H. Coburn
Parties: UTU-T vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1971-11-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Found that an extra trainman ordered to cover a job "until further notice" did not fit into "regularly assigned" status. Denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 191-Award 1
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1971-10-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained time-and-one-half rate for holiday work by through-freight enginemen who converted to local freight most of the time.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 191-Award 2
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1971-10-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denied penalty rate to "pool" enginemen on the determination that they are not regular assigned road-service employees."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 191-Award 5
Neutral: Harold M. Weston
Parties: UTU vs. Norfolk & Western
Award Date: 1971-10-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denied claim for basic day and penalty rate on the basis of total mileage for a round trip of three segments exceeding 100 miles.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 623-Award 6
Neutral: Howard A. Johnson
Parties: UTU-E vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1971-09-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Relied on precedent language of several awards to sustain basic day and penalty rate for working in resolving the basic issue of mileage for local freight enginemen on turnaround assignment of 59 miles each way. Significant factor was that claimants were paid two basic days, not 118 miles for trip.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 556-Award 42
Neutral: John H. Dorsey
Parties: UTU-T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1971-09-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Cited precedents to deny basic day and penalty rate to trainmen in "through-freight pool service."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 556-Award 43
Neutral: John H. Dorsey
Parties: UTU-T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1971-09-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Cited precedents to deny basic day and penalty rate to trainmen in "through-freight pool service."
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 180-Award 865
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific
Award Date: 1971-07-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained claims of extra engineers in a number of circumstances.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 495-Award 5
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1971-06-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained claim for basic day for engineer whose assignment did not operate Sundays and holidays in accordance with carrier bulletin.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 495-Award 6
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1971-06-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denied claim of fireman from common extra list for road work on holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 495-Award 10
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1971-06-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Ruled round trip of through freight one way and local freight the other was not regularly assigned local freight service. Denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 495-Award 11
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1971-06-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Ruled round trip of through freight one way and local freight the other was not regularly assigned local freight service. Denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 525-Award 11
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1971-06-08 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denied basic day to extra employees who were held at away-from-home terminal when assignment was annulled on holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 591-Award 96
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa FE-CL
Award Date: 1971-05-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Disposed of two separate claims on their merits.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 347-Award 52
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1971-04-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Rules extra road brakeman was not a regularly assigned road service employee. Denied overtime rate for holiday work.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4647
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific - PL
Award Date: 1971-04-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Ruled terminal switching is service performed and compensable at time-and-one-half, but terminal delay is an arbitrary and therefore not entitled to penalty rate.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 486-Award 1
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Maine Central
Award Date: 1971-03-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Followed precedent language that extra man assumed all conditions of assignment, including holiday pay. Sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 574-Award 72
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU vs. St. Louis-San Francisco
Award Date: 1971-03-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denied benefit of pool crews as not being regularly assigned in local or miscellaneous service.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 574-Award 87
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU vs. St. Louis-San Francisco
Award Date: 1971-03-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Labored over language whether claimant brakeman was extra conductor or emergency conductor. Denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 88-Award 117
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1971-03-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Denied a switchman's claim because he was not available for the full calendar day preceding holiday.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4630
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific - PL
Award Date: 1971-03-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Held that agreement does not expressly require a full tour of duty on a qualifying day. Here, claimant became ill after a few hours at work and marked off sick. Sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4630
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Southern Pacific-PL
Award Date: 1971-03-02 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claimant brakeman in road-switcher service sustained for time and one-half for all service performed on the holiday, despite the fact that on the day following he was not available for the full tour of duty since he laid off sick after 3 hours on duty.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 598-Award 10
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Western Maryland
Award Date: 1970-12-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: The instant award sustains the claim of an extra engineer, assigned to an extra list covering both road and yard service, for time and one-half for work performed in road service on December 25, 1969, and in accordance with Section 3, of the June 25, 1964 Agreement, as amended on April 15, 1969. The thrust of the Referee's findings are based on the fact that the claimant engineer performed twelve tours of yard duty in the thirty-day period preceding the holiday and was available for yard service on both December 24 and December 26, the day preceding and following the Christmas holiday. Therefore, claimant was entitled to time and one-half payment for all services performed on the holiday, irrespective of whether service was performed on the road or in the yard.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 175-Award 215
Neutral: Francis B. Murphy
Parties: UTU vs. Milwaukee Road - West
Award Date: 1970-09-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor for holiday pay for work performed on holiday when assigned to helper service 30.6 miles in each direction. Upon basis that assignment was miscellaneous service of 100 miles or less, claim was sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 697-Award 23
Neutral: Harold M. Gilden
Parties: UTU vs. Western Rwy of Alabama
Award Date: 1970-09-22 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims for holiday pay on holidays and birthdays for conductors and trainmen who protect through freight assignments of less than 100 miles. Upon basis that carrier cannot call a train a "through freight" to bar eligibility for holiday pay, claims were sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 530-Award 5
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: UTU-C&T vs. Milwaukee Road
Award Date: 1970-08-19 00:00:00
Synopsis: Yardman, otherwise eligible for holiday pay, sustained in claim for holiday pay when due to illness he was relieved from duty on the holiday without completing total hours of his assignment.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 574-Award 61
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. St. Louis-San Francisco
Award Date: 1970-07-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of a conductor for 100 miles holiday pay on December 25, 1964. Claimant was in work train service and assignment was abolished on December 24, 1964. Thereafter, he took extra board and worked the 25th, 26th (holiday) and the 27th. Upon basis that employee will not be disqualified because assignment abolished the claim was sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 537-Award 1
Neutral: Murray M. Rohman
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison Topeka & Santa FE-WL
Award Date: 1970-07-14 00:00:00
Synopsis: Request of Committee that provisions of Article 11 (c) of September 14, 1968, National BLF&E Agreement is applicable to all runs on which holiday pay is payable. Retroactive payment should be made to each fireman (helper) working on such runs subsequent to July 1, 1968. This involves the 40 cent increase over the basic increases involved in this national agreement. Claim was sustained. This award should be noted and retained by all UTU Committees.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 88-Award 81
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1970-06-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for brakemen for holiday pay on February 22, 1967. Denied upon basis claimant was not regularly assigned.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 88-Award 87
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Delaware & Hudson
Award Date: 1970-06-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Brakemen claimed holiday pay on May 30, 1967. Claimant was assigned to a regular freight run operating between two terminals which involved a distance of less than 100 miles. Claim sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4573
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific
Award Date: 1970-06-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of emergency road switcher conductor for basic day, plus overtime rate for all services performed on Labor Day, September 6, 1965. Claim for overtime rate denied. Claim for basic day sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4567
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific
Award Date: 1970-06-09 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor on work train for holiday pay on February 22, 1965. Claim denied on basis work train was not limited to 100 miles or less.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 357-Award 7
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Texas & Pacific-Midland Valley
Award Date: 1970-06-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of a conductor and crew for time and one-half for services performed on second tour of duty on a holiday. Claimants made two trips on holiday and carrier allowed one trip at time and one-half but denied time and one-half payment for second trip upon basis of understanding reached with former ORC& B. Upon the basis of the clear and unambiguous wording of the rule, claim was sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4518
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific
Award Date: 1970-04-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of brakemen for holiday pay on May 31, 1965. Claimant did not work his assignment on holiday account being used on another assignment, as provided by schedule agreement. Claim for basic day sustained. Claim for time and one-half for time worked on holiday, denied.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4519
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific
Award Date: 1970-04-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of brakemen for holiday pay on May 31, 1965. Claimants did not perform service on regular assignment during week in which holiday fell. Claims denied.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4520
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific
Award Date: 1970-04-21 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of brakemen for holiday pay on May 31, 1965. Claimants did not perform service on regular assignment during week in which holiday fell. Claims denied.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 589-Award 136
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1970-03-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of pool freight brakeman for holiday pay upon basis district on which they protect unassigned service was less than 100 miles. Denied upon basis of a schedule rule specifying that such employees are in unassigned service.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 589-Award 138
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1970-03-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of brakemen for holiday pay upon basis claimant was regularly assigned to protect specified freight trains operating over a district of less than 100 miles. Claim sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 589-Award 140
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-T vs. Penn Central
Award Date: 1970-03-31 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor and brakeman for time and one-half for services performed in work train service on a holiday. Denied upon basis that work train service is a recognized service; is not "through freight service", nor "miscellaneous service", therefore, is not within the classification covered by Section 2(a) Article I of the National Agreement.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 286-Award 19
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Northern Pacific
Award Date: 1970-02-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of road crew for holiday pay for February 22, 1968. Claim denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 286-Award 20
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Northern Pacific
Award Date: 1970-02-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of various road crews for holiday pay, February 22, 1968. Claims denied.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 482-Award 2179
Neutral: Arthur W. Sempliner
Parties: UTU-T vs. Texas & Pacific
Award Date: 1970-01-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of conductor and brakemen for basic day and overtime rate for all services performed on Labor Day, September 7, 1964. Denied upon basis claimants were assigned to extra board, therefore, were not regularly assigned.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 309-Award 10
Neutral: Howard A. Johnson
Parties: UTU-T vs. Louisville & Nashville
Award Date: 1969-12-01 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of road crews operating in straightaway service of less than 100 miles. Claim denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 186-Award 3
Neutral: John B. Criswell
Parties: UTU-T vs. Houston Belt & Terminal
Award Date: 1969-11-10 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim for Holiday Pay when assignment was blanked. Held, another crew performed work on the blanked assignment. Claim sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 400-Award 31
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: UTU-E vs. Missouri Pacific
Award Date: 1969-10-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Question whether Article I, Section 2 (b) requires the payment at the rate of time and one-half for services performed for which an arbitrary is paid. Claim denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 338-Award 10
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Award Date: 1969-10-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Followed the rationale of precedent to deny claims of extra trainmen whose argument was that Section 2 applied to them on the theory that all conditions of a regular assignment apply to employees on the assignment.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 338-Award 12
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Award Date: 1969-10-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Cited the distinction between through freight and local freight service to deny basic day and penalty rate for working holiday.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 338-Award 11
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Award Date: 1969-10-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Followed the rationale of precedent to deny claims of extra trainmen whose argument was that Section 2 applied to them on the theory that all conditions of a regular assignment apply to employees on the assignment.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 307-Award 1
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: UTU-E vs. Penn Central - Southern
Award Date: 1969-10-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of a fireman assigned to pool freight service which was confined to less than 100 miles. Claim sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4460
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: UTU-T vs. Southern Pacific-Pacific
Award Date: 1969-10-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of regularly assigned Brakeman for earnings of his regular assignment (amended to include one basic day for holiday.) Claim denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 366-Award 1
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: BLE vs. Spokane, Portland & Seattle
Award Date: 1969-10-13 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of various engineers for holiday pay under Article I, Section 2 (a). One claim sustained, others denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 226-Award 4
Neutral: John J. McGovern
Parties: UTU vs. Chesapeake & Ohio
Award Date: 1969-08-15 00:00:00
Synopsis: Sustained engineer's differential rate of pay for working without fireman.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 362-Award 6
Neutral: George S. Ives
Parties: UTU-T vs. Monon Railroad
Award Date: 1969-07-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of various crews for Holiday Pay and overtime when worked on a regular through freight assignment in pool service, on runs of less than 100 miles. Claim sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 344-Award 27
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: UTU-T vs. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
Award Date: 1969-06-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of an extra conductor for time and one-half account working on an assignment which was covered by Article I of the June 25, 1964 National Agreement. Claim sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 335-Award 1
Neutral: Byron R. Abernethy
Parties: UTU vs. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie & Lake Erie & Eastern
Award Date: 1969-06-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: Regular fireman in pool through freight service claims holiday pay under Section 2 when used on holiday. Ruled claimant was "regularly assigned" within the meaning and intent of the June 25, 1964 Agreement. Sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 339-Award 7
Neutral: None
Parties: UTU-T vs. Maine Central-Portland Terminal
Award Date: 1969-06-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of through freight trainmen for holiday pay under Section 2. A previous award on the property, Award 48 of SBA 560, had denied similar claims. The partisan members of PLB 339 reversed Award 48 and sustained the claims "in consideration of the decided dominance of sustaining awards."
View Award
Public Law Board No. 339-Award 8
Neutral: none
Parties: UTU-T vs. Maine Central-Portland Terminal
Award Date: 1969-06-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Trainman claims holiday pay for his birthday holiday when service was performed on his regular through freight assignment which the Board in Award 7 rules is covered by the paid holiday rule. The partisan members sustained the claim without referee.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 303-Award 1
Neutral: Kieran P. O'Gallagher
Parties: UTU-E vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1969-05-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of firemen for holiday pay. Dispute existed as to whether assignment was confined to a run of 100 miles or less. Therefore, claim was dismissed.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 303-Award 3
Neutral: Kieran P. O'Gallagher
Parties: UTU-E vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1969-05-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of fireman for holiday pay, plus time and one-half for all services performed on July 4, 1967. Denied upon basis assignment was in excess of 100 miles.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 303-Award 4
Neutral: Kieran P. O'Gallagher
Parties: UTU-E vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1969-05-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of fireman for time and one-half and holiday pay on May 30, 1967. Denied upon basis that assignment in question was not an assigned local.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 303-Award 6
Neutral: Kieran P. O'Gallagher
Parties: UTU-E vs. Soo Line
Award Date: 1969-05-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of fireman for time and one-half account working July 4, 1967. Claimant was regularly assigned as hostler and worked on holiday. Claim was sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 271-Award 9
Neutral: William H. Coburn
Parties: UTU-T vs. Lehigh & Hudson River
Award Date: 1969-05-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of conductor and trainman on through freight assignment making two round trips between two points each working day for a total of 80 miles, for which 100 miles was paid, for holiday pay under Section 2. Sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 271-Award 10
Neutral: William H. Coburn
Parties: UTU-T vs. Lehigh & Hudson River
Award Date: 1969-05-05 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim #1
Through freight crew regularly assigned in through freight service on runs of less than 100 miles claims holiday pay under Section 2. Sustained.
Claim #2
An extra brakeman was called to perform service on a holiday in through freight service on run of less than 100 miles, and claimed time and one-half for the service performed on the holiday. Sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4381
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: BRT vs. Southern Pacific-PL
Award Date: 1969-04-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Road switcher crew, used to make extra trips on holiday, claims time and one-half for all service performed in addition to earnings on regular assignment and holiday pay. Denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 259-Award 8
Neutral: David H. Brown
Parties: UTU-E vs. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe-W
Award Date: 1969-04-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: A freight crew was assigned to work straight-away over 89 mile district, returning to home terminal each date, total mileage 184. Crew paid 100 miles each direction for the separate trips amounting to a double each date. Neutral stated:
"We do not think the rules contemplate that for everyday purposes an assignment can be divided into 2 segments of 92 miles each but that for holiday pay purposes the miles will be calculated on a cumulative basis of 184 miles."
Claims were sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 236-Award 18
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: BRT vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1969-03-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claims of conductors and brakeman on local freight for one day's pay when local was annulled on holiday. Involves use of claimants off regular assignments, local or switcher runs, to work as extra conductors. 3 claims - see facts as outlined in findings. Sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4376
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: BRT vs. Southern Pacific-PL
Award Date: 1969-03-18 00:00:00
Synopsis: Road switcher crew claims time and one-half for service performed on Labor Day, in addition to holiday pay, while working out bulletin covering rearrangement of on-duty time. Sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 140-Award 1305
Neutral: Robert O. Boyd
Parties: ORC&B vs. Milwaukee Road - E
Award Date: 1969-03-04 00:00:00
Synopsis: Through freight crew claims holiday pay. Sustained. See Board's application of ORC&B Interpretation Agreement dated April 21, 1966.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 118-Award 17
Neutral: Carroll R. Daugherty
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1969-01-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of engineer for holiday pay, involving question of availability when assignment was annulled and claimant did not indicate he was ready for work. Sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 118-Award 18
Neutral: Carroll R. Daugherty
Parties: UTU-E vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1969-01-28 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of engineer for holiday pay, involving question of availability when assignment was annulled and claimant did not indicate he was ready for work. Sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 207-Award 5
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: BRT vs. Milwaukee Road
Award Date: 1969-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra brakemen working on temporary vacancies claim holiday pay. Denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 207-Award 6
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: BRT vs. Milwaukee Road
Award Date: 1969-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Regular brakemen on through freight assignments claim holiday pay. Sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 207-Award 9
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: BRT vs. Milwaukee Road
Award Date: 1969-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra brakemen working on temporary vacancies claim holiday pay. Denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 207-Award 10
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: BRT vs. Milwaukee Road
Award Date: 1969-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra brakemen working on temporary vacancies claim holiday pay. Denied.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 207-Award 7
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: BRT vs. Milwaukee Road
Award Date: 1969-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Regular brakemen on through freight assignments claim holiday pay. Sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 207-Award 8
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: BRT vs. Milwaukee Road
Award Date: 1969-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Regular brakemen on through freight assignments claim holiday pay. Sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 207-Award 11
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: BRT vs. Milwaukee Road
Award Date: 1969-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Regular brakemen on through freight assignments claim holiday pay. Sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 207-Award 12
Neutral: Jacob Seidenberg
Parties: BRT vs. Milwaukee Road
Award Date: 1969-01-27 00:00:00
Synopsis: Regular brakemen on through freight assignments claim holiday pay. Sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 235-Award 1457
Neutral: Francis B. Murphy
Parties: UTU vs. Chicago & North Western
Award Date: 1969-01-23 00:00:00
Synopsis: Claim of crew assigned in through freight service for holiday pay. Sustained for trainmen.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 37-Award 173
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: BRT vs. St. Louis-San Francisco
Award Date: 1968-12-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: This is a notable award. The assignment in question has an operating mileage of 99 miles, on a daily basis. A special memorandum of agreement involving service to an industry allowed an additional four miles as an arbitrary. The carrier denied holiday pay contending that the crew was not confined to 100 miles or less. Claim was sustained.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 18-Award 4347
Neutral: Paul D. Hanlon
Parties: BRT vs. Southern Pacific-PL
Award Date: 1968-11-29 00:00:00
Synopsis: Regular brakeman, from pool freight crew was used as an emergency conductor on road switcher crew and claims holiday pay. Sustained under Question 2, ORC&B April 21, 1966 Interpretation.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 180-Award 764
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific-PL
Award Date: 1968-09-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: This award involved local freight runs assigned to operate less than 100 miles, but bulletined to operate on only three days per week. On the days of operation, the crew doubled. The neutral concluded that the assignment, although confined to an average of only six basic days per week, failed to qualify under the rule.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 180-Award 765
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific-PL
Award Date: 1968-09-20 00:00:00
Synopsis: This award involved local freight runs assigned to operate less than 100 miles, but bulletined to operate on only three days per week. On the days of operation, the crew doubled. The neutral concluded that the assignment, although confined to an average of only six basic days per week, failed to qualify under the rule.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 236-Award 9
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: BRT vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date: 1968-08-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Extra men filling temporary vacancies on outlying runs claim additional day or holiday pay when runs were annulled on holiday. Claims for holiday pay denied, claims under guarantee rule sustained.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 65-Award 6
Neutral: Thomas C. Begley
Parties: BRT vs. Lake Terminal
Award Date: 1967-11-24 00:00:00
Synopsis: Precedent case for award above on inadvertent overpayment or advance payment when splitting vacation.
View Award
Special Board of Adjustment No. 180-Award 703
Neutral: David R. Douglass
Parties: BLE vs. Southern Pacific-PL
Award Date: 1967-06-26 00:00:00
Synopsis: This case involves two holiday claims - one by a regularly assigned engineer who went on a hold-down assignment and the other by an extra engineer who went on a hold-down assignment. Regular man's claim was sustained and the other claim denied.
View Award
Arbitration Board -Award BRT-62-E
Neutral:
Parties: BRT vs. Erie Lackawanna
Award Date: 1966-08-17 00:00:00
Synopsis: BRT Disputes Comm., April 5, 1957 Agreement - Case BRT-62-E. Claimant switchtender sustained for time and one-half for working holiday, despite the fact that on the day following the holiday, he laid off sick following five (5) hours of service performed on his regular assignment.
View Award
Public Law Board No. 236-Award 19
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: BRT vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date:
Synopsis: Involved claim of extra men for a basic day's pay when local assignment which they were filling was blanked. Board holds that the national agreement does not eliminate the guarantee rule. Claims under guarantee rule were sustained; claims under holiday rule were denied. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 266-Award 7
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Norfolk & Western (W&LE)
Award Date:
Synopsis: Claim of a brakeman on an assignment which was confined to less than 100 miles but by special agreement, on some dates, paid additional mileage which carrier contended precluded claimants from qualifying for Holiday Pay. Claim sustained. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 393-Award 1
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: UTU-T vs. Central California Traction Co.
Award Date:
Synopsis: Claim holiday allowance on road switcher assignment. Claim sustained. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 412-Award 1
Neutral: Charles W. Ellis
Parties: UTU vs. Winston Salem Southbound
Award Date:
Synopsis: Claims of road conductors and road trainmen who protected assigned through freight trains on a district of less than 100 miles. Upon basis of Article I not applying to through freight service, these claims were IMPROPERLY DENIED. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 236-Award 10
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: BRT vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date:
Synopsis: Extra men filling temporary vacancies on outlying runs claim additional day or holiday pay when runs were annulled on holiday. Claims for holiday pay denied, claims under guarantee rule sustained. (undated award)
View Award
Public Law Board No. 236-Award 11
Neutral: Preston J. Moore
Parties: BRT vs. Denver & Rio Grande Western
Award Date:
Synopsis: Extra men filling temporary vacancies on outlying runs claim additional day or holiday pay when runs were annulled on holiday. Claims for holiday pay denied, claims under guarantee rule sustained. (undated award)
View Award