The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Wilmer Watrous when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION No. 26, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A.F. of L.-C.I.O. (Carmen)
1957. Cedartown, Georgia-Chattanooga, Tennessee is one seniority district under the effective agreement. There has been no violation whatsoever of the current agreement between the parties.
POSITION OF CARRIER: It is the position of carrier that the claim filed by Local Chairman J. L. Bookout is without merit and should be denied in its entirety. The claimant bid the job in and was awarded the position. He took the rate of pay, hours of assignment, work week, and rest days of the job. Cedartown, Georgia is 19 miles from Rome, Georgia via rail, and Rome, Georgia is 78 miles via rail from Chattanooga, Tennessee, all on the same line of railroad. Cedartown-Chattanooga is one seniority district. The men work at first one place and then the other within this seniority district, that is, they bid back and forth, etc. The pertinent seniority roster is reproduced below:
"SENIORITY ROSTER - COLUMBUS DIVISION
(Revised to January 1, 1959)
"Cedartown-Chattanooga District
The record shows that Claimant J. E. Harp of his own volition bid in the vacation relief job in question. He did not go into it with his eyes closed. He knew the conditions. He bid in the job. It was his. Your Board and other divisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board have consistently held in a long line of awards that an employe bidding in a position accepts all the conditions that go with the job. By conditions, we mean rate of pay, location, hours of assignment, work days, rest days, etc. Thus, none of the rules relied upon by the carmen are in point in this case. There is no semblance of merit to the claim, and it should be denied in its entirety.
It is the further position of the carrier that the burden of proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the petitioners. See Second Division Awards Nos. 2938, 2580, 2569, 2545, 2544, 2042, 1996, and others. Also, see Third Division Awards Nos. 8172, 7964, 7908, 7861, 7584, 7226, 7200, 7199, 6964, 6885, 6844, 6824, 6748, 6402, 6379, 6378, 6225, 5941, 2676, and others-all of which clearly state that the burden is on the claimant party to prove an alleged violation of the agreement.
Carrier respectfully requests the Board to deny this claim in its entirety as it is wholly without merit for the reasons shown.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, based 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 claimant, J. E. Harp, bid a vacation relief position beginning May 30, 1957. Rule 1(e), specifying the method of paying expenses in traveling to outlying points, does not apply under these circumstances. However, Article 12 (a) of the National Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941, is applicable, reading in part as follows:
J. E. Harp was necessarily put to substantial extra expenses in certain of his vacation relief assignments.
The Board holds that where Rule 12(a) used the wording "necessarily is put to substantial extra expense" it established the requirement that the relief worker must actually incur substantial extra expense as a consequence of his assignment. The claimant in this dispute did not show that he incurred extra expense as a consequence of his vacation relief assignments in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
The carrier is directed to compensate J. E. Harp for travel and expenses according to Rule 1(e), regular relief rule, for those assignments on vacation relief that claimant filled at Rome, Georgia.