THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD
COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes on the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, that
(1) Mr. R. J. Sheehan, Clerk employed in the U. S. Mail Accounts Section, a subdivision of the Foreign Interline Bureau of the Auditor of Passenger Receipts Office, New Haven, Conn., be paid at the rate of $48.25 per week for the period June 15th to 30th, inclusive, 1943, or fourteen days, and
(2) Mrs. A. D. Durkin, Clerk employed in the Passenger Ticket Section of the Foreign Interline Bureau of the Auditor of Passenger Receipts Office, be paid at the rate of $44.99 per week for the period June 15th to 24th. inclusive, 1943, or nine days.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Foreign Interline Bureau is one of several Bureaus under the supervision of the Auditor of Passenger Receipts at New Haven, Conn., all of which are engaged in the counting of passenger receipts. Each Bureau is supervised by a Bureau head who reports directly to the Auditor of Passenger Receipts and the Bureaus are subdivided into various sections with a lead clerk in each subdivision identified as an Assistant Bureau head who reports to the Bureau head.
Prior to June 15, 1943 the U. S. Mail Accounts Section of the Foreign Interline Bureau was composed of four positions, the position numbers and incumbents, titles, rates of pay and monthly duties being as follows:
Appeal is taken from decision of Mr. G. T. Carmichael, Vice President and Comptroller, his letter of January 8 concerning claims of R. J. Sheehan and Mrs. Anna D. Durkin employed in the Auditor of Passenger Receipts Office.
Claim is made that Mr. Sheehan be paid the difference between $48.85 and $44.99 per week for the fourteen days he was assigned to assume the duties and responsibilities of Mr. Breuler's position and that Mrs. Durkin be paid the difference between $44.99 and $31.20 for the nine days she was assigned to cover Mr. Sheehan's position. The basis for our contention is Rule 62 of our agreement and that both Mr. Sheehan and Mrs. Durkin covered the full assignments of the higher rated position on the specified dates.
"An 'assignment' contemplates the fulfillment of the duties and responsibilities of the position during the time occupied whether the regular occupant of the position is absent or whether the assignee does the work irrespective of the presence of the regular employe. Assisting a higher rated employe due to a temporary increase in the volume of work does not constitute an assignment. It shall not be the practice to regard a lower rated employe as 'assisting' a higher rated employe when the volume of work has increased to the extent of justifying the establishment of an additional higher rated position."
The first question that must be answered is: Did employes Sheehan and Durkin fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the higher rated positions in question? It will be observed that the rule does not provide that an assignment contemplates the fulfillment of all the duties and responsibilities of the position. It ig significant too that under the rule there may be an assignment irrespective of the presence of the regular employe. It would seem therefore that it is for the Board to determine upon the facts in each case whether there has been in fact an assignment. See Award 2270. It appears that while Sheehan was performing some of the work in the higher rated position, other work of identical character was at the same time being performed by Head Clerk Breuler. The record seems to sustain the contention of Organization that Claimants were performing the duties and responsibilities of the higher rated positions within the meaning of the rule.
We come then to the second and remaining question: Were the employee assisting a higher rated employe due to a temporary increase in the volume of work? In connection with this issue, it is Carrier's contention that the work was due to temporary increase in volume of emergency mail service over the Christmas holidays. However, the record seems to support Organization's position that there had been a regular seasonal increase of business which resulted in an accumulation of work, necessitating more help. This is borne out by the fact that an additional employe was added to the U. S. Mail Section force effective July 10, 1943, (See Docket CL-2978.) If there was a steady and consistent increase in the volume of the work, even though seasonal, as there appears to have been here, then it seems to the Board that such an increase does not come within the contemplation of the exception in the rule as to "temporary increase." Compare Award 2262.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and