NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Board of Adjustment of the Brotherhood that Carrier violated rules of our Agreement:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: A. The operation of handling the mail in this terminal includes several different types of duties of the employes. Prior to 1947 practically all positions except Tractor Operators were bulletined simply as Mail Handlers. This was not satisfactory to the employes because it did not give them an opportunity to choose the position or location they individually preferred To correct that situation, notice was served on Management on December il, 1946, asking for an ajustment in rates and reclassification of certain positions in the mail terminal. It was ultimately necessary to invoke the services of the Mediation Board under provisions of the Railway Labor Act. An agreement was reached on December 2, 1947, known as Mediation Case No. 2649, which adjusted certain rates of pay and established new classifications of Dispatchers, Callers, Markers and Storagemen, effective January 1, 1948.
B. July 1, 1948, Carrier bulletined position of Marker to which definite duties were assigned as evidenced by Bulletin 1205. (Employes' Exhibit 1)
The Claimant, Mr. Dreier, was awarded this position by Bulletin 1205A, effective July 9, 1948. (Employes' Exhibit 2)
C. Following termination of a force reduction that Carrier instituted as a result of labor troubles with engine service employes, Carrier, by an agreement with the Brotherhood, arranged for bulletining he reestablished positions in the baggage and mail department of the Carrier as evidenced by General Baggage and Mail Agent Hunter's letter dated May 16, 1950. (Employes' Exhibit 3)
cross-examination, the right to produce competent evidence in its own behalf at a proper trial of this matter, and the establishment of a record of all of the same.
OPINION OF BOARD: This case is concerned with a claim of the System Board of Adjustment filed on behalf of H. B. Dreier who had a regularly assigned position as Marker awarded him in accordance with the seniority provision of the effective Agreement.
There is no serious disagreement between the parties with respect to the basic facts involved in this case. On or about May 19, 1950 one R. L. Everett was awarded a tractor operator position. This resulted in a vacancy in his former position of mail dispatcher. This vacancy was advertised in the usual way on May 20, 1950, and finally assigned to David Zaret on May 26 1950. Zaret's regular assignment was that of mail handler on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and relief dispatcher on Monday and Tuesday with rest days on Wednesday and Thursday. When the mail dispatcher's position became vacant on May 20 Zaret was assigned to fill that position temporarily and did so on Sunday, May 21, Monday, May 22, and Tuesday, May 23.
On May 24 and 25 Claimant Dreier, a Mail Marker, was designated by Management to perform the duties of mail dispatcher. On the following day, May 26, the position of mail dispatcher, having been duly bulletined, was formally awarded to Zaret.
The Petitioner contends that when the Carrier designated Claimant Dreier to perform the mail dispatcher's job on the 24th and the 25th he was being required to suspend work on his own position in order to absorb overtime which Zaret would have otherwise worked. Hence Rule 42 of the effective Agreement was being violated.
The Carrier asserts that its action in using Dreier on these days as a mail dispatcher was not for the purpose of absorbing overtime. Furthermore, the Carrier contends that under Rules 10 and 11, and in accordance with the Rule governing extra boards, the Carrier was privileged to take the action which it did.
It does not appear that the situation involved on the dates in question can be regarded as an emergency, as argued by the Carrier. However Rule 10 does provide that bulletined positions may be filled temporarlly pending a regular assignment of the job.
These two rules considered together appear to give some discretion in the making of temporary rearrangements in the work force. In the instant situation an extra board man was used to fill the mail marker's job temporarily.
In its presentation the Petitioner cites several other employes whom it contends could have been put on the mail dispatcher's job without violating Rule 42. If as Petitioner admits, this was true, it was equally true for Dreier. In view of these particular facts and in view of the cited rules an affirmative award cannot be justified in this case.
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: 5955-11 665