The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 148, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'

DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L.-C. I. O. (Carmen)








EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carman Donald Isakson, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, is regularly employed by the Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, as a carman at Duluth, Minnesota. The claimant is regularly assigned to the repair track as an air man with a work week of Monday through Friday 7:00 A. M. to 3:30 P. M., with Saturday and Sunday as rest days.


On February 3, 1958, Assistant Car Foreman R. Georts began two weeks vacation, resuming his duties as foreman on February 17, 1958.


On Monday, February 3, 1958, the carrier removed the claimant from his regular assignment of air man and assigned him to fill the position of Assistant Car Foreman R. Georts for the duration of the latters vacation.


The carrier compensated the claimant while filling the position of Assistant Car Foreman Georts at the rate of $475.00 per month. Later the carrier advised the claimant that he should have been compensated at the rate of $503.00 per month and additionally compensated him in the amount of the difference between the rate paid and the $503.00 rate.


Assistant Car Foreman R. Georts' monthly rate of pay is $543.00 per month.



3756 -4 58







In view of the circumstances outlined the carrier contends that there is no justification for the employe's claim.

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.



Claimant Isakson was used to fill the position of Assistant Car Foreman Georts during the latter's vacation, and was paid at a probationary rate rather than at the latter's regular pay rate.




The Carrier's position is that Georts' job is supervisory and therefore is not covered by the Agreement; and that:






The argument might be valid if Georts had been filling the assistant foreman's position on a probationary basis. But as his position was not probationary and he was not receiving the probationary rate, the latter is not "the rate * * * applying to the position". Consequently Rule 35 was violated.
3756-5 559



    Claim sustained.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of SECOND DIVISION


              ATTEST: Harry J. Sassaman

              Executive Secretary


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of June, 1961.