STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the Order of Railway Conductors, Pullman System, for and in behalf of Conductor W. P. Johnson, Philadelphia District, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: I. On February 1-3, 1951, Conductor W. P. Johnson, Philadelphia District, under assignment to a run designated as Line 2368 performed a round trip Philadelphia to Erie, Pa., and return, including assigned layovers. (Exhibit No. 1, copy of Operation of Conductor form 93.1216, dated Jan. 27, 1951) Conductor Johnson was credited with one day for each of these three days.
On February 4, 1951, Conductor Johnson was assigned to, and performed, a relief day on Line 2368 at his home terminal, Philadelphia. He received one day's credit for February 4th.
On February 4 Conductor Johnson was displaced from the run designated as Line 2368 and then, under the provisions of Rule 37, displaced into the run designated as Line 6551, Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. (Exhibit No. 2, copy of Operation of Conductor form 93.126 dated January 1, 1951).
Johnson would be entitled to hourage credit and pay up to 7 hours far the 24-hour period which comprised his relief day. Rule 9 (a) reads as follows:
In response to this claim by the Organization, Management contends initially that the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, has no jurisdiction to hear or consider the claim for held-for-service credit and pay. Under the provisions of Rule 51. Claims of the applicable working Agreement, when a conductor considers that any rule of the Agreement has been violated, he or his duly authorized representative may present a claim of rule violation to his district representative. No claim for held-for-service credit and pay was embodied in the original letter of claim in behalf of Conductor Johnson (see Exhibit D, p. 1). Thus, the Organization's claim for held-for-service has not been handled on the property of The Pullman Company in the manner provided by the applicable collective bargaining contract. Section 3, First, (i) of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, reads as follows:
In view of the fact that the Organization has failed to handle its claim for held-for-service in behalf of Conductor Johnson in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the Carrier, the Company respectfully submits that the Third Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, cannot, under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, take cognizance of it.
The Company affirms that all data presented herewith and in support of its position have heretofore been presented in substance to the employe or his representative and made a part of this dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was assigned to Line 2368 and was displaced under Rule 37 prior to the expiration of his layover on February 6090-36 1198
4, 1951. He then exercised displacement rights onto Line 6551 which was scheduled for a cycle of 19 days consisting of six round trips and a relief day. At the time claimant started service on that line five round trips of the cycle had been completed by the conductor he displaced so after one round trip the scheduled relief day occurred.
It is the credit for such relief day which is the principal basis of the claim but it appears that such day was properly prorated and credited in accordance with Rule 19.
It is contended that since claimant held a regular assignment on each day during February that he is entitled to be paid under Rule 20, which provides in part:
It appears to us that claimant did not complete a monthly assignment because he worked part of the month on one assignment and was displaced from it. Then he displaced into another assignment and worked part of the month on it. Such service is clearly covered by Rule 21 which establishes the method of computing the pay of "conductors working part time on regular assignments".
However it is also contended that Question 2 and Answer 2 under Rule 20 would be applicable to any day of the month so that one moving into an assignment after noon of any day would be subject to Rule 20 if his layover from his prior assignment extended past noon of that day. That Question and Answer very clearly and unambiguously relate only to the first day of the month, confirm that the Rule contemplates a full month's service on an assignment and preclude any intention to consider one entering upon an assignment after the first day of the month as a full time conductor.
The claim alternatively asks for allowance of compensation under Rule 9, held for service. Certainly one is not held for service on a regularly scheduled relief day of an assignment unless held beyond the expiration of the scheduled layover. Such was not the case here and the claim is without merit.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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
In this Award the majority has erroneously interpreted Rule 20 as being applicable only where a Conductor occupies a single assignment during the month, which holding is not in accord with the clear language and purpose of the Rule, the underlying principle of which is to establish a monthly wage for Conducors who maintain a status in regularly assigned service during an entire month.
The majority ignores the fact that the named Conductor completely fulfilled the requirements of each of the two assignments occupied during the month of February, 1951. It erroneously applies the rule to an assignment rather than to the Conductor.
Claimant worked full time in regular assignment, i.e., every day in the month during the entire month, as "Rule 20, Regular Assignments-Full Time" contemplates.
He completed a monthly assignment as a "regularly-assigned Conductor" and was entitled to be credited and paid as such in accordance with Rule 20. The Carrier has so recognized but the majority holds that the facts of record in this individual case must govern, and no such recognition has been shown therein.