CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Employe L. A. Scholl, seniority date May 4, 1948 was regularly assigned to Relief Train Clerk Position No. 4 at Bensenville, Illinois, with assigned rest days of Sunday and Monday.
Relief Position No. 4 was assigned to relieve C. Blackmore on Position No. 497 on Tuesday, First Train Clerk L. E. Conley on Position No. 580 on Wednesday and Thursday and W. Grosnick on Position No. 571 on Friday and Saturday.
On Thursday, November 25 1954, Carrier advised Relief Employe L. A. Scholl that Position No. 580 would not work on that day. The duties normally assigned to Position No. 580, which are performed by Employe Conley on the regular work days of the position and performed by Employe Scholl on the rest days, consist of the following duties in connection with inbound IHB, Belt and S. E. trains:
There is no basis for the claim presented in behalf of employe L. A. Scholl and the Carrier respectfully requests a denial award.
OPINION OF BOARD: This docket and Docket CL-7905 are submitted together because they involve the same Carrier, the same rules and identical factual situations except different claims.
The dispute arises because the Carrier blanked position No. 580 a Clerk's position, on certain holidays and allowed the Chief Yard Clerk to perform the duties tereof.
It is admitted by both sides that the work falls in the category of work for unassigned days, but Carrier defends its action by seeking to rely on items 1 and 2 from Memorandum of Agreement No. 9 revised September 1, 1952, particularly that portion of item 2 which reads
It is admitted that claimants in both dockets qualified under the rule if position No. 580 had not been blanked on the holidays involved.
We think the issued in these two dockets resolves itself into the question of whether the work done by the Chief Clerk on the days involved was "preponderantly" the work belonging to position No. 580.
On January 6, 1955 A. T. Martinek the Chief Clerk who did the work wrote to Employes' Division Chairman as follows (Docket CL-7905):
Later Martinek wrote a letter to the Carrier in effect repudiating what he had written to the Division Chairman, and it is upon this, together with 8271-9 182
certain tours of duty of Martinek's that Carrier seeks to avoid payment of these claims.
In attempted justification for Martinek's action the Carrier's representative on the Board says in his brief
It is at this point that the Carrier falls into error. The record is conclusive on the point that the Organization repeatedly requested the Carrier to make a joint check on the work involved, and the Carrier replied in effect that it would be just a waste of time. This is one facility for settling disputes.
The Carrier's attempt to rely on the theory of the work not belonging "exclusively" to Claimants in these two dockets is unavailing here because the rule, item 2, supra relied upon by Claimants uses the word "preponderantly". The work relied upon was preponderantly that of Claimant.
Our conclusion is that the Carrier violated the agreement and the claim should be sustained. Award 7134.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of bearing 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