The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in

addition Referee Joseph M. McDonald when award was rendered.


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 152, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'

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




DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That the Carrier violated the provisions of Rule 2-A-5 when it did not fill the Machinists vacancy of K. E. Reddick on November 7 and 14, 1960.


2. That the Carrier be ordered to compensate Machinist H. E. Todd eight (8) hours Grade "E" pro rata rate of pay for November 7 and 14, 1960.


EMPLOYES STATEMENT OF FACTS: Machinist H. E. Todd, hereinafter referred to as the claimant is employed by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, at Hawthorne Enginehouse, Indianapolis, Indiana, which is part of the Southwestern Region.


On November 7 and 14, 1960, Machinist K. E. Reddick, was taken off his regular assignment as machinist to fill a vacancy of a gang foreman, who was off on those two dates, thereby creating a vacancy in the machinist craft forces.


On September 12, 1960, an agreement was signed by System Federation No. 152, general chairmen and carrier representatives, to become effective October 15, 1960. Rule 2-A-5, the rule that is involved in this dispute, was one of the rules that was contained in the agreement signed September 12, 1960, which had some language in it that made the rule mandatory in its provisions.


Not once during the handling of this claim by the committeeman or the local chairman did the management mention anything whatsoever about not being able to reach agreement with the local chairman nor committeeman in connection with filling Reddick's position as specified in Rule 2-A-5.


This dispute has been handled, in writing, by the committeeman of Lodge 1244, International Association of Machinists, under date of November 20, 1960, with the Hawthorne enginehouse foreman. Denied by the foreman, in



4364-14 777

It is respectfully submitted that the National Railroad Adjustment Board, Second Division, is required by the Railway Labor Act to give effect to the said Agreements, which constitute the applicable agreements between the parties, and to decide the present dispute in accordance therewith.


The Railway Labor Act, in Section 3, First, Subsection (i), confers upon the National Railroad Adjustment Board the power to hear and determine disputes growing out of "grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions." The National Railroad Adjustment Board is empowered only to decide the said dispute in accordance with the agreement between the parties to them. To grant the claim of the employes in this case would require the Board to disregard the Agreement between the parties hereto and impose upon the carrier conditions of employment and obligations with reference thereto not agreed upon by the parties to this dispute. The Board has no jurisdiction or authority to take any such action.




The carrier has shown that the rules agreement was not violated and that the claimant is not entitled to the compensation claimed.


Therefore, the carrier respectfully submits that your Honorable Board should dismiss or deny the claim of the employes in this matter.


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 was a Machinist at the Hawthorne Enginehouse at Indianapolis with a tour of duty from 10:00 P. M. to 6:00 A. M.


K. E. Reddick, a Machinist, was taken off his regular assignment on November 7th, and 14th, 1960 and used to fill a position as Gang Foreman on those dates. Reddick's position was blanked and it is Claimant's contention that he was available and should have been used to fill the vacancies on the dates in question.


It is the Carrier's contention that it had a right to blank the position when the provisions of Rule 2-A-5 could not be complied with.


Claimant contends that Rule 2-A-5 requires that day-to-day vacancies must be filled, and that Carrier has no right to blank any vacancy under the Rule.

4364-15 778










There is some dispute as to whether the parties attempted to reach a mutual agreement in filling the vacancy. We find that there was an attempt even though meagre.

 It will be noted that Claimant was off duty, and his availability would be at the overtime rate. It was agreed by the parties that the position could not be filled by resort to paragraphs of Rule 2-A-5.
 4364-i6 779

 The questions to be determined are whether the Rule requires a position to be filled, even if resort must be had to overtime employes, or can a position be blanked if the steps provided for in the Rule are exhausted and no employe as listed therein can be found?

 We find that the parties to the agreement spelled out the procedure for filling day-to-day vacancies in detail, and confined themselves to that procedure. Nowhere does the Rule provide for filling these vacancies from overtime employ es. Accordingly the Claim here must be denied.









Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of December, 1963.