BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
JOINT STATEMENT OF FACTS: Employe R. W. Carothers, seniority date January 8, 1946, assigned to position No. 849 at Garner, Iowa as Clerk from 9:00 P. M. to 6:00 A. M. with one hour for lunch. osition is assigned daily with Saturday and Sunday as assigned rest days.
Prior to October 15th, 1949, employe Elsie Hrubes seniority date May 1, 1946, was used to relieve this position on assigned rest days, Saturday and Sunday. On October 13, 1949 employe Hrubes was granted a leave of absence account of sickness for six months or less, and Charles Johns was employed to relieve the position on Saturday and Sunday.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: There is located in Seniority District No. 41, in addition to position No. 849 at Garner, Iowa, other positions which required seven days service each week. Those positions, like the one at Garner, were needed to service trains and perform other station work, therefore, requiring service on seven days of each week. The exact number of positions requiring service on six or seven days is not known by the employes. However, there were several positions existing in the Seniority District at the time this dispute arose and we list below three positions which, we believe, is sufficient to prove the contention of the employes.
hours in a work week. Employe Carothers, the claimant, did not perform service in excess of 8 hours on any day nor in excess of 5 days or 40 hours in any work week.
For the reasons cited the Carrier asserts the claim is not supported by schedule rules and respectfully requests that same be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant was assigned to Position 849 at Garner, Iowa, 9:00 A. M. to 6:00 P. M., Monday through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday as rest days. Prior to October 15, 1949, one Elsie Hrubes was used on Saturdays and Sundays. On October 13, 1949, she was granted a six months leave of absence and Charles Johns was employed to perform the Saturday and Sunday work. The use of Johns is alleged to be in violation of the Agreement and Claimant seeks compensation for work lost.
It is first contended that Carrier violated Rule 27(e), 1949 Supplemental Agreement, in not establishing a regular relief assignment to work five of six rest days at Garner, Calmar and Clear Lake. The record shows that there were two rest days to be filled at each of the three named points, all in the same seniority district. The record also shows that the distance between Garner and Calmar is 95 miles. Clear Lake is between the two, 11 miles east of Garner. The only available extra employes were at Mason City which is nine miles east of Clear Lake. Rule 27(e) provides:
The Carrier shows that there was not adequate train service between the three points to permit a regular relief employe to perform the service required. The words "All possible regular relief assignments * ' · will be established to do the work necessary on rest days * ' *" means that such positions will be assigned when reasonable conditions exist which will permit all of the work to be done in the manner required. We do not think the Carrier violated Rule 27 (e) in failing or refusing to establish a regular relief position to do rest day work at these three points. The rules do not require the establishment of such positions in every instance where it is literally possible to do so. Reasonableness must govern in the application of such a rule.
The Organization contends that there were furloughed and extra clerks at other points which should have been used for the rest day work at Garner. For the purposes of this claim, we accept Carrier's statement that they were not available to perform the work in question.
The Organization next contends that the use of Johns violated the Agreement. Johns was a farmer who had never worked for the Carrier prior to performing Saturday and Sunday rest day work on Claimant's position. It is clear that he was not a bona fide employe when he was hired. It is clear also that he had no employment status with the Carrier when he accepted the rest day work in question. This Board has repeatedly held that to qualify for rest day work, a person must be a bona fide employe with antecedent seniority or employe status. This is the construction the Board 6997_14 146
has placed on rules similar to the wording used in Rule 28, 1949 Supplemental Agreement. We adhere to those holdings. Awards 5558 and Interpretation No. 1 thereto, 6259, 6522, 6853, 6854, 6855 and 6974.
It appears from the record that Johns was given a seniority date which was properly posted and not protested But this does not invalidate a claim based upon Johns' improper use under the Awards cited in the previous paragraph.
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
Claim sustained at pro rata rate, except for any holiday work involved which is payable at the time and one-half rate.