NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association for and in behalf of C. W. Plummer, train dispatcher, International-Great Northern Railroad Company, that:
(1) The Carrier failed to comply with the rules of the Train Dispatchers' Agreement when on April 3rd and 4th, 1949, it failed to use extra dispatcher C. W. Plummer, to work the third trick dispatcher position at Palestine, Texas.
(2) Dispatcher C. W. Plummer shall now be paid the difference between what he was paid as telegrapher and what he would have received if he had been used to perform dispatcher service to which he was entitled on April 3rd and 4tb, 1949.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: An Agreement, effective May 1, 1948, between the International-Great Northern Railroad Company and its train dispatchers represented by American Train Dispatchers Association, copy of which is on file with this Board is, by this reference, made a part of this submission as though fully incorporated herein. The scope rule of said Agreement, pertinent to the instant dispute, reads as follows:
This Agreement shall govern the hours of service and working conditions of train dispatchers. The term `train dispatcher' as hereinafter used, shall include Night Chief, Assistant Chief, trick, relief and extra train dispatchers. It is agreed that one Chief Dispatcher (now titled Division Trainmaster on this property) in each dispatching office shall be excepted from the scope and provisions of this Agreement."
At about 1:00 P.M., April 2, 1949, Mr. G. P. Sowell, a regularly assigned train dispatcher in the Palestine, Texas office, whose hours of duty were from
the case under consideration the Carrier has shown that it was not possible to relieve claimant to perform the two days extra work.
Award 4150 involves eleven dates on which it was found that an extra dispatcher junior to claimant was used to fill temporary vacancy on a position of train dispatcher. While it was the position of the Carrier in that case that there was no qualified extra telegrapher available to relieve claimant on his regular position of telegrapher, your Board found otherwise. The following excerpt is quoted from "Opinion of Board" in that case:
In the case under consideration the Carrier has conclusively shown that there was no extra telegrapher available to relieve Mr. Plummer on his regular telegrapher position in the Relay District in "Q" Office.
Award 4263 involves claim of an extra dispatcher account not used on twenty dates to relieve regularly assigned dispatchers on their rest days. The claim now before your Board is based upon the contention that Mr. Plummer should have been used to fill Dispatcher Sewell's position on two dates he was off account sickness. The following is quoted from "Opinion of Board" in Award 4263:
Aside from the fact that an entirely different situation was involved in Award 4263 than in the case under consideration, we believe the above quotation from "Opinion of Board" in that case is sufficient to show its lack of comparability with the instant case.
When consideration is given to the circumstances in this case, which obviously precluded the use of claimant as extra train dispatcher on the two dates in question, it is clearly evident that there is no jurisdiction, merit or basis for the claim here presented, and it should, therefore, be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant Plummer was an extra dispatcher, holding regular asignment as first trick operator in "Q" Office at Palestine, 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and was off duty on his assigned rest day and was available to be called to work on the assignment in question. On April 2 1949, Trick Train Dispatcher Sowell reported unable to work account of sickness on his trick, April 3, at Palestine, Texas. The Carrier, instead of calling Extra Dispatcher Plummer, used R. P. Bailey, a regularly assigned relief dispatcher.
The Employes contend that the Carrier violated Rule 4 (g). The Carrier states that the claimant was not available for the extra service in question because of an alleged shortage of operators to relieve Plummer from his regular telegrapher's duties.
Under this rule the claimant was entitl d to the work. The contention of the Carrier that the claimant was not available for the extra work because of the shortage of operators to relieve the claimant has no merit. Award 2942.
The reason the Carrier advanced in the exchange of correspondence that "it was not practical to use Telegrapher Plummer as extra dispatcher" has no merit.
Plummer had to protect his seniority by being available for extra work as a dispatcher, he was available and when the Carrier gave this work to another, it violated the contract.
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