ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS AND BRAKEMEN,
PULLMAN SYSTEM
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: The Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, Pullman System, claims for and in behalf of Conductor W. T. Huntemann, Washington District, that:
There is an Agreement between the parties, bearing the effective date of January 1, 1951, and amendments thereto, are 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.
For ready reference and convenience of the Board, the most pertinent parts of Rule 38 (c), which are directly applicable to the dispute are quoted as follows:
Also, the Company has shown in this ex parte submission that even if the case were decided on its merits the claimant, Conductor Huntemann, would not be entitled to adjustment since he would not have performed the Birmingham trip if assigned to it. The claim in behalf of Conductor Huntemann for a trip Washington-Birmingham and return is without merit and should not be sustained.
All data submitted herewith in support of the Company's position have heretofore been submitted in substance to the employe or his representative and made a part of this dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: During the signout period for extra conductors in the Washington District on November 25, 1956, there were four road service assignments to be filled. The first road service assignment was a trip Washington-Birmingham on Southern train 17, reporting time 3:10 P. M. November 25, 1956. The second road service assignment was a trip Washington-Parkersburg, W.Va. on Baltimore & Ohio train 17, reporting time 9:20 P. M.
The third conductor, C. E. Stiffler, was listed with 118:40 hours. The fourth conductor was unavailable and the fifth conductor, W. T. Huntemann, was shown with 122:15 hours. Under Rule 38 the first assignment, Washington to Birmingham, was given to Conductor C. E. Stiffler but he was displaced by Conductor F. G. Peters. The second assignment was made to the second available conductor, W. T. Huntemann, who did fill the Parkersburg assignment.
It was discovered that the relief clerk had made a mistake in charging hours to the two above named conductors and that if their hours were properly posted their positions would have been reversed.
A claim was filed on December 11, 1956 in behalf of Conductor Stiffler for compensation for the Parkersburg assignment which was filled by Huntemann. This claim was denied by Supt. Leban on February 18, 1957.
On March 5, 1957 Mr. Wise wrote to Mr. Dodds, the Appeals Officer, as follows:
The Organization contends that the Carrier's defense to Stiffler's claim was that Huntemann was the proper claimant and offered to make a settlement with Huntemann. This may be true but an offer of compromise is, after its rejection, no longer binding on the party who makes it. Presuming that the Carrier admitted Huntemann had a claim the fact remains that no claim was filed for Huntemann until the limitation had expired under Rule 51 of the Agreement.
Huntemann did not make a claim until March 5, 1957, three months and seven days after the date of the alleged violation.
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 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