The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George A. Cook when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 121. RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (CARMEN)
TEXAS-PACIFIC-MISSOURI PACIFIC TERMINAL RAILROAD
OF NEW ORLEANS
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1-That the carrier violated the controlling agreement when Junior Coach Cleaner Joseph Simms was assignea to the position of coach cleaner on October 23, 1946, instead of restoring to the service, Senior Coach Cleaner M. R. Washington.
2-That in consideration of the aforesaid, the carrier be ordered to pay said Coach Cleaner M. R. Washington for all time she was rightfully entitled to work, effective October 23, 1946 to February 24, 1947.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: M. R. Washington was employed as a coach cleaner by the Texas Pacific-Missouri Pacific Terminal Railroad of New Orleans, on June 1, 1944, and she remained continuously in the service as such until furloughed with others in a force reduction about April 1, 1946. Subsequently, M. R. Washington was used at intervals to fill temporary vacancies of regularly assigned coach cleaners.
On October 18, 1946, the force was increased through the bulletining of temporary positions for two coach cleaners-one 6 days and one 7 days per week, copy of which is submitted and identified as Exhibit 1. Applicants for these positions were three furloughed coach cleaners, namely:
and their service standing is affirmed by copy of seniority roster of coach cleaners, identified as Exhibit 2. Of these applicants, Alberta Byers was assigned to the 6-day job, and Joseph Simms was arbitrarily assigned to the 7-day job, instead of M. R. Washington. However, the carrier did restore M. R. Washington to her rights on February 24, 1947, by virtue of furloughing Joseph Simms, and copies of these bulletins and application addressed to the general car foreman by Coach Cleaner Washington are submitted and identified as Exhibit 3.
The agreement effective April 1, 1943, as subsequently amended is controlling.
This woman claimant was not available under the State law to fill a 7-day, 56-hour per week, position.
At the time this 7-day job was put on to meet the requirements of the service, it was necessary to work same 7 days per week. We certainly would not have worked the position and paid for 7 days per week if 6 days would have met the requirements.
Immediately after business decreased to such an extent that we could get along with a 6-day assignment, we did this and allowed Woman Coach Cleaner Washington to resume duty on a 6-day assignment on date of February 24, 1947. This is evidenced by number of passenger cars cleaned at New Orleans, October 1946, compared with February and March, 1947, shown below:
While we cannot conceive of your Board sustaining this claim, would call attention to the fact that the claim as presented to your Board requests the carrier "to pay said Coach Cleaner M. R. Washington for all time she was rightfully entitled to work, effective October 23, 1946, to February 24, 1947".
By any stretch of imagination should such claim on the part of M. R. Washington be sustained, it should be for her net loss, if any, or the difference between what she would have made in our service and that which she did earn in any other compensated service during the period involved. Where settlement of claims were made for lost service involving shop craft employes, the method of deducting earnings made elsewhere has been followed, as was the case in the claim covered by your Board's Docket No. 3, Award 18. The claimant in that case having earned $1700 in other service, that amount was deducted from the amount paid him as time lost. In this respect, also be referred to your Board's Awards 825 and 1180, ruling that any earnings in other employment would be deducted in arriving at time lost.
In the case at issue, however, we feel that the Board should not penalize the carrier or otherwise imply that the carrier would have been on good grounds in violating or evading a Louisiana State Law merely to meet the wishes of the claimant herein; and the carrier, therefore, respectfully requests that the claim be denied.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The record shows two jobs were up for bid-one a 7-day job, the other a 6-day job. The 6-day job was bid in and filled by a woman having greater seniority than Mrs. Washington. 1207-6 14