NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: The Order of Railway Conductors, Pullman System, claims for and in behalf of Conductor R. J. Harpster, Minneapolis District, that he was not credited and paid "Held-for-Service Time" as outlined below, in violation of Rule 9 of the Agreement between The Pullman Company and its Conductors.
We further contend that Conductor Harpster was not issued a temporary transfer from Minneapolis District to St. Paul District, in accordance with Rule 42 of the Agreement, and we now ask that he be credited and paid "Held-for-Service Time," as provided in Rule 9, as follows:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence an Agreement between The Pullman Company and Conductors in the service of The Pullman Company, dated September 1, 1945 revised January 1, 1948. This Rules Agreement will be considered a part of this Statement of Facts.
In this submission The Pullman Company has shown that the sole restriction placed upon Management in the temporary transfer of conductors is that the conductors must be transferred in accordance with their seniority. The Rule sets forth no formal procedure to be followed. Conductor Harpster was improperly transferred from Minneapolis to St. Paul during the period May 24-31, inclusive, because conductors senior to him desired temporary transfer and were entitled to be transferred before Harpster. However, on and after June 1, 1948, Conductor Harpster was the senior conductor who desired to fill the vacancy for temporary transfer advertised on June 1. Therefore, his transfer after that date was in accordance with the provisions of Rule 42.
The Board should render an Award recommending that the Organization accept the settlement proposed by the Company on April 30, 1951 (Exhibit D).
OPINION OF BOARD: On May 21, 1948, Carrier posted a notice to conductors in the Minneapolis Division advising that two conductors were required in St. Paul on temporary transfer and that any conductors wishing to transfer were to advise in writing within ten days. On May 24, 1948, Claimant advised Carrier in writing that he wished to take a temporary transfer to St. Paul. As of May 24 Claimant commenced work in the St. Paul District. Before the expiration of the ten-day period two conductors senior to Claimant indicated their desire to take temporary transfer to St. Paul and, effective June 1, 1948, they were so assigned. June 1, 1948, another notice was posted to conductors in the Minneapolis District advising that there was a vacancy for one conductor for temporary transfer to St. Paul and that any conductor wishing to make the transfer should make written request within ten days. On June 11, 1948, Carrier posted a notice that Vacancy Bulletin dated June 1 for one conductor for temporary transfer to St. Paul had been awarded to Claimant.
The Employes contend that Claimant's status during the period of his service at St. Paul was that of a "borrowed" conductor because he was not temporarily transferred to St. Paul in accordance with applicable rule. Consequently, they assert, Claimant should have been paid under the provisions of Rule 9(b) (held away from home terminal). Carrier contends that Claimant was temporarily transferred to St. Paul in accordance with Rule 42 governing temporary transfers.
It is to be noted that Rule 42 makes no provision for the bulletining of temporary transfers. The rule merely requires the Carrier to grant the privilege of making a temporary transfer to the conductors in the district from which transferred in accordance with their seniority in that District. The rule is silent with respect to the mechanics or means by which Carrier 5591-i s 7 221
is to determine which of the conductors in the transferring district wishes to exercise the privilege. The bulletin rule of the Agreement does not require the bulletining of temporary transfers. However, it is obvious that Carrier at least in this instance chose the means of bulletining to ascertain the desire of the conductors who would be privileged to apply for transfer. That the Carrier did not consider the transfer as effective until the expiration date of the bulletin is evidenced by two factors-(1) A notice was posted indicating those awarded the privilege of temporary transfer after the expiration date of the bulletin; (2) Carrier concedes that Claimant was not in temporary transfer status during the period May 24 through May 31 because senior conductors desired to transfer. It is evident, therefore, that Claimant's status as a temporary transferee in no event could be considered as effective until after the expiration date of the bulletin of June 1, 1948, or June 11, 1948.
The Employes contend that Claimant did not express a desire to transfer to St. Paul pursuant to the June 1, 1948, bulletin and was therefore on a "borrowed" status until he was returned to his home district on July 1, 1948. We cannot agree with this contention. The Claimant had indicated a desire for temporary transfer on May 24, 1948, and he had not revoked that expressed intention. After the notice was posted indicating that he had been awarded the temporary transfer, he continued to work in St. Paul showing his status on his time records as a temporary transferee. Under such circumstances he cannot now be heard to say that he did not desire to exercise the privilege of transferring. It follows that the claim for compensation under 9(b) will be sustained for the period from May 24 to June 11; the remainder of the claim is denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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 dispute involved herein; and
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Upon application of the representatives of the employes involved in the above award, that this Division interpret the same in the light of the dispute between the parties as to its meaning and application, as provided for in Section 3 First (m), of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:
The sole question involved in this request for interpretation is what period of time should be considered in computing the compensation due Claimant under the above Award.
At 2:30 P, M. on June 11, 1948, when notice was posted that the temporary transfer was awarded to Claimant his status as a "borrowed" conductor ceased. Accordingly, he is entitled to pay under Rule 9 (b) until that time on June 11, 1948.
Referee Francis J. Robertson, who sat with the Division as a member when Award No. 5591 was adopted, also participated with the Division in making this interpretation.