NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carrier was given advance information that one of their regular assigned Train Mail Clerks was going to be absent from duty on October 14 and 15, 1950. Train Mail Clerk Arnold, who completed his round trip at approximately 7:50, P.M. on October 13, informed the second trick Foreman in charge, Mr. D. Wells, that he was available for this service as he could stay in Chicago that night and would be on hand at reporting time next day to make this round trip, which he could make and would also be available for his next regular assigned round trip.
He was advised by Foreman Wells that the arrangements had been made to protect this service; that the General Agent; Mail, Baggage and Express Traffic, had notified him, Wells, to make the round trip himself. Clerk Arnold was thereby denied the right to protect this unassigned service due to the vacancy.
Clerk Arnold thereupon, at approximately 7:50 P.M. on October 13th, notified the Foreman in charge that he would claim the round trip because he was available for the service, had requested same more than twelve (12) hours in advance of the beginning of the round trip, and was more than sixteen (16) months senior in service to D. Wells in Class I seniority in the District.
General Agent Lewis' denial of our claim (Employer' Exhibit No. 1-A and 1-D) was appealed to Mr. Morgan, Manager of Personnel, November 11,
From the above, there can be no doubt as to the manner in which these employes have been used in the past. Platform Mail Handlers or Foremen have at all times filled vacancies in train mail service. The few isolated instances where it is shown that train mail clerks were used were occasioned because a mail platform employe was not available to fill the vacancy.
In view of the interpretation heretofore placed on the agreement and the practice of many years' standing, as indicated by the record herein, Carrier submits this claim is without merit and should be denied.
Carrier affirmatively states that all data contained herein has been handled with employes' representative.
OPMON OF BOARD: We are here concerned with the claim of one R, Arnold for reimbursement of wage loss to the extent of one round trip Chicago to Evansville, account of Respondent's failure to use him (Arnold) to fill vacancy as Train Mail Clerk; which failure, it is alleged, is in contravention of the effective Agreement.
The record here indicates that the vacancy in question was on a position which departed Chicago destination Evansville, on October 14, 1950 and made the return trip, Evansville to Chicago, on the following day, that is, October 15, 1950. The Claimant here had completed his assignment, namely a round-trip on the same run at 7:50 P. M. on October 13, 1950 and his next regular run left at 7:25 A.M. on October 16, 1950.
The record further shows that Claimant made request to fill vacancy of October 14, 1950 some twelve hours prior to departure time of said run, and further, that at such departure time Claimant would have had sixteen hours of rest.
The parties agree that Claimant was possessed of more seniority than Platform Foreman Wells, and that both were Group 1 employes working in the same seniority district.
The Organization asserts the provisions of Rule 11 give Claimant, as senior employe in Group 1, the prior right or preference to vacancies in regular assigned or extra road service. Rule 11 reads as follows:
Respondent here takes the position that the above rule is applicable only to those Group 1 employes who work on the platform, and all vacancies in regularly assigned or extra road service are available only to those of Group 1 who are platform employes.
Rule 11 makes no distinction between platform employes and road service employes. Both road service employes and platform employes are included in Group 1.
The record indicates that while both platform and road service employes have in the past filled vacancies in regular and extra road assignments there is no showing that such assignments are the exclusive property of platform employes. To the contrary, there is every indication that such vacancies or extra assignments were filled in strict accordance with seniority among all Group 1 employes.
The settlement on the property cited by the Respondent does not sustain the contention of the Respondent that such work belongs exclusively to platform employes. Therein a claim was paid to a senior platform employe who complained that a junior train mail employe had been given an assignment contrary to the applicable rule. In allowing this claim Respondent in effect honored and followed strict seniority.
Vacancies in regular assigned or extra road service belong to neither train mail employes or platform employes, to the exclusion of the other. Both train mail employes and platform employes are component members of Group 1.
Within the clear meaning of Rule 11, preference to any vacancies in either regularly assigned or extra road service should be given to the senior Group 1 employes in the district, irrespective of whether or not he then holds assignment as a train mail employe or a platform employe.
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