STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Raymond H. James is regularly employed as a Trackman on Section No. 81, Brewer Jet., Maine.
During the period November 10 to November 23, both dates inclusive, 1949, Foreman Tate, the regular foreman on Section No. 81 was on vacation.
Prior to going on vacation Foreman Tate instructed Trackman James that he was to inspect track, cut brush, perform ditching work, etc.
From November 10 to 23, Trackman James directed the work of Trackman Batchelder, the other member of the crew and, in addition, received instructions from Track Supervisor B. B. Whitney.
On December 3, 1949, the General Chairman requested the Supervisor, B. B. Whitney, to pay Trackman James the difference between the trackman's rate and the foreman's rate of pay for the 10 day period, November 10 to 23, both dates inclusive, and request was declined.
The agreement in effect between the two parties to this dispute, dated May 28, 1942, and subsequent amendments and interpretations are by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES. On November 25 1949, Trackman Raymond H. James addressed the following letters to deneral Chairman M. T. Simmons:
OPINION OF BOARD: Claim is here made that Carrier violated Rule 33 (a) of the Schedule in that Petitioner performed a higher class of work.
Before deciding whether the facts as we find them warrant an affirmative finding, we deem it helpful to point out that one who performs tasks outside his job description does so either as a volunteer or by direction from someone who has real or apparent authority to issue such direction.
We will first inquire into what various people assert with reference to Petitioner being delegated authority to issue an order. The immediate superior in rank of Petitioner in writing made what is practically a categorical denial of granting such authority to Petitioner. Petitioner's colleague in writing stated he accepted one (1) order from Petitioner which he knew originated with someone other than Petitioner. This same individual further stated in writing, with respect to the work detail outlined by his superior in rank, he received from his colleague no further orders. Whether he received and accepted orders, outside the above mentioned work detail, from Petitioner we cannot determine from the state of the record herein.
In regard to the single order hereinabove referred to, there is no contention the same involved the use of discretion on the part of Petitioner or that the issuing authority acted as it did for any purpose except that of convenience. Consequently such instance is not controlling.
We find nothing in the directions given by Petitioner's superior in rank to indicate the same included functions not within his job description or that the same included the authority or discretion to direct his associate in the manner said functions were to be performed.
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 Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the disnute involved herein; and