STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Clifford Hahn was regularly assigned to Position No. 9, Station Attendant, hours 4:30 P. M. to 1:00 A. M., with rest days of Friday and Saturday, at Cincinnati, Ohio. He worked his regular assignment as Station Attendant from Sunday, September 4 to Thursday, September 8, 1955, inclusive. He was called to work on rest day, Saturday, September 10, 1955, as Assistant Station Master for a full 8 hour day and was compensated at the pro rata rate of the Station Master position.
The claim was handled in the usual manner up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier for that purpose, without settlement being made.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: There is in evidence an Agreement between the parties bearing effective date of duly 1, 1946, amended September 1, 1949 and amended February 1, 1956, containing the following Rules which are quoted in whole or in part:
The Carrier certainly has the right under the rules of the agreement to have the work performed at straight time rate; therefore claim is without merit and should be denied by your Honorable Board.
All relevant facts and data involved in this dispute have heretofore been made known to employe representatives.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant worked his regular assignment as Station Attendant from Sunday through Thursday . On Saturday, his second assigned rest day, he was called to fill a vacancy in an Assistant Station Master's position, for which he received pay at its pro rata rate. The claim is for the difference between the rate and time and one-half for his rest day work.
Under the heading "Exceptions" to Rule 1-Scope, the position of Assistant Station Master, which is included in Seniority Group 1, is expressly excepted from the application of Rule 13-Bidding and Assignment, and is to be "filled by the proper officers," although "employes within the clerical class will be given preferred consideration as against non-employes".
The work performed by Claimant on Saturday was not "due to moving from one assignment to another", since he was filling a purely temporary assignment because of the illness of its occupant, and returned to his own position when the latter was able to resume work. He was not promoted or moved to a new assignment. The position is not subject to Rule 13-Bidding and Assignment, and the Carrier was not obligated to place him in it. Clearly none of the other exceptions specified in Rule 28 is applicable to this case.
Awards of this Division, many of them somewhat different in circumstances, but all nevertheless analogous in principle, are Awards 5113, 5421, 5464, 5494, 5495, 5805, 5873, 6382, 6440, 6479, 6504, 6970, 6971, 6973, 8009, 8395, 8527 and 8897. Those awards and what we consider the clear intent of Rule 28 require the sustaining of this claim.
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