NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Howard A. Johnson, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the American Train Dispatchers
Association that:
(a) The Erie Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as
"the Carrier", failed to comply with the requirements of Article
4 (c) of the current agreement when it refused and continues to
refuse to pay Train Dispatcher R. Cisco, of its Jersey City,
New
Jersey office, for loss of the opportunity to perform train dispatcher service on the hours of his regular assigned position on
Thursday, February 7th and Friday, February 8th, 1967, due to
the fact that he was required by direction of proper authority to
fill another assignment not acquired by him through exercise of the
seniority provisions of the Agreement and which assignment did
not include the hours of his regular assigned position on the days of
this claim.
(b) By reason of its action as set forth in the above paragraph (a) of this claim, the Carrier shall now compensate Claimant
R. Cisco for two days' pay at pro rata rate of trick train dispatcher
for loss of opportunity to perform service on his regular assigned
position, 11:00 P. M. to 7:00 A. M., Thursday, February 7 and
Friday, February 8, 1967.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
There is in effect an agreement between the parties, bearing the effective date of April 8, 1942, and
amendments thereto. A copy of this agreement and revisions thereto is on
file with your Honorable Board and by this reference is made a part of this
submission the same as though fully set out herein.
This claim is based on the provisions of Article 4, Section (c), of the
agreement, which reads as follows:
13497
8985-11
359
Neither this Division, nor any other Division of the National Railroad
Adjustment Board, should ignore legislative direction. Consequently, the
findings of Award 6817 should be affirmed.
The Carrier submits that for the reasons herein set forth, the claim
should be denied.
All data contained herein have been presented to or are known to
Petitioner,
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant Shratt was required to work the first
trick instead of his regular second trick assignment on the same day.
The question here is the interpretation of Rule 4(c), and is identical
with that in Award 8984. We, therefore, conclude that the claim must be
denied for the reasons stated in that Award, which we shall not here repeat.
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 respeetively 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
That there was no violation of the agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: F. P. Morse
Acting Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of September 1959.
DISSENT TO AWARD 8985-DOCKET NO. TD-9888
For the reasons set out in the dissent to Award 8984, a like dissent is
filed herein.
R. C. Coutta
Labor Member-Third Division
NRAB
Chicago, Illinois
October 1, 1959
8986-12
360
COMMENT ON DISSENT TO AWARD 8985
For comment upon the above Dissent see Comment on Dissent to Award
8984.
Howard A. Johnson, Referee