NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the Northwestern Pacific Railroad, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is in evidence'an agreement between the parties bearing an effective date of August 1, 1945 (reprinted September 1, 1951, including revisions). A copy of this agreement is on file with the Board and is hereby made a part of this dispute.
On the date of this claim there were three shifts of Telegrapher-clerks at Santa Rosa, California, working around the clock eight hours a day under the supervision of the Agent. On December 26, 1952, the first, second and third shift Telegrapher-clerks at this station received the following message:
Like in the above award, claimant was instructed to work his rest day, the only difference being that instead of an extra operator becoming available to perform the work on his rest day, the regularly assigned swing man returned to duty and worked the job. The claimant was relieved from working his assigned day of rest which is in accordance with the provisions of the Telegraphers' Agreement.
Carrier avers that the claim in this docket is without basis or merit and therefore respectfully submits that it should be denied.
All data herein submitted have been presented to the duly authorized representative of the employes and are made a part of the particular question in dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD; Claimant W. W, Tait is regularly assigned as a Telegrapher-Clerk at Santa Rosa, California, working 2:00 P. M. to 10:00 P. M., with Mondays and Tuesdays as assigned rest days. W. J. Harvill was regularly assigned to a rest day relief position, which included the two rest days of Claimant Tait's position. On December 24, 1952, Harvill was granted sick leave. Since no extra telegrapher was available to take Harvill's place, the regular employes, including Claimant, were instructed to work their rest days until Harvill's return.
At 11:20 A. M. December 29, 1952, Harvill presented a medical release. Carrier notified Claimant Tait, by telephone, at 11:30 A. M, on the same day that Harvill was returning to work that afternoon. Official notice reached Tait ten minutes before the start of his 2:00 P. M. shift. Under Rule 23, (a), 3, Tait made claim for pay for the eight hours for December 29, 1952.
Paragraph 3 of Rule 23 (a) provides that "In the event an assigned employe returns from sick leave, he shall give the Carrier sufficient advance notice of such return to permit the Carrier to give the employe temporarily assigned to the position, twenty-four (24) hours advance notice of his displacement . .". And Rule 23 (d) requires employes returning from leaves of absence to 'give Carrier the same twenty-four (24) hours' notice.
We can only interpret this to mean that Harvill was obligated to give the Carrier a minimum of twenty-four hours advance notice before resuming his assignment. And if the Rule is to have the obvious effect intended, Carrier is obligated to give similar timely notice to the employe who has relieved the excused employe. Any other interpretation would render this rule meaningless.
Nor is this rule applicable only to temporary extra men. While the last sentence in pargraph 3 of Rule 23 (a) makes special mention of and provision for the "temporarily assigned" employe, this sentence applies only where such a temporarily assigned employe is involved. It in no way qualifies the twenty-four hours' notice required for all employes who have been substituting for those who have been on leave.
It is our understanding that Claimant's request is limited to the pro rata rate for the 8-hour shift on December 29, 1952, the date on which he failed to receive timely notice that his services would not be required. Since it is our conclusion that Claimant Tait should have been permitted to work the assignment on the date in question, his claim must be sustained. 7109-1e 267