Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes as the representative of the class or craft of employes in which the Claimant in this case held a position and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company-hereinafter referred to as the Brotherhood and the Carrier respectively.
amended, covering Clerical, Other Office, Station and Storehouse Employes between the Carrier and this Brotherhood which the Carrier has filed with the National Mediation Board in accordance with Section 5, Third (e), of the Railway Labor Act, and also with the National Railroad Adjustment Board. This Rules Agreement will be considered a part of this Statement of Facts. Various Rules thereof may be referred to herein from time to time without quoting in full.
at Burma Yard Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Terminal Division, tour of duty 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., with one hour meal period, rest days Saturday and Sunday. She has a seniority date on the seniority roster of the Philadelphia Terminal Division in Group 2.
But that, to the contrary, Rule 4-A-1 (i) specifically permits the Carrier to use extra or unassigned employes for work on days which are not a part of any assignment.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the instant claim is not supported by the applicable Agreement and should be denied.
All data contained herein have been presented to the employe involved or to her duly authorized representative.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, Mary D. Williams, was a regular assigned Group 2 employe at the Burma Yard Office of the Pennsylvania Railroad during January, 1953, working five days a week, Monday through Friday. There was work to be done on Saturday, January 24, 1953. In an agreed statement of facts Carrier and Organization stipulate that the work to be done on Saturday, January 24, was extra work, not a part of Claimant Mary D. Williams' regular assignment; that at the time there was no "Extra List" or "Extra List Agreement" covering Group 2 employes at Burma Yard Office.
The carrier called in a furloughed employe. The claimant alleges the work being extra work, and there being no eligible extra employe available as there was no extra work, that it was the claimant's work at premium pay, and could not be allocated to a furloughed employe.
This is a matter of contract construction. Award 7079 is very similar and controlling. The sections to be considered are Rules 2-A-1 (e), 3~C-3, 4-A-1 (i), and 5-C-1.
As it was agreed that this was extra work, not part of a regular assignment, Rule 4-A-1 (i) would be applicable. Rule 4-A-1 (i) reads:
This rule provides for extra employes, but there are no extra employes, as there are no extra boards established under Rule 5-C-1:
Are there any exceptions to these two rules? There do not appear to be any. Rule 3-C-3 (b) provides for use of furloughed employes from this same type of work but only when the work is not done by senior employes. Here the claimant was a senior employe to the furloughed employe involved. Rule 3-C-3 (b) reads:
Rule 2-A-1 (e) does not apply, as this appears to apply to positions, not the type of work here in question. The work we have here, being purely extra work, non-repetitious, and of short duration.
The Agreement being violated the claimant will be compensated for 8 hours pay at straight time. Premium pay will not be awarded as no work was performed. .Claim allowed.
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 Employe involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employe 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
Insofar as is here pertinent, Rule 3-C-3 (b) provides that, "Furloughed employee, who have notified the employing officer that they desire consideration for temporary work, will when available, be given preference on a seniority basis to all extra work x x T." (Emphasis added.) Since it is agreed that on the date in question the work involved was extra work, the furloughed employe, therefore, became the available unassigned employe and, not having had forty hours work that week, had preference to such work under Rule 4-A-1 (i) over "the" regular employe who is the claimant here. Seniority is not involved in this dispute.