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 H. M. Grigsby, Dallas District, that:
A Conductor run, in accordance with the rules of the Agreement, has been established on T&P trains 7 and 8 between Dallas, Texas and El Paso, Texas, designated on the "Operation of Conductors" form as Line 3518. Copy of the "Operation of Conductors" form that was in effect on August 30, 1955, is attached as Exhibit No. 1.
The Dallas District Conductors assigned to T&P trains 7 and 8 handle two Pullman cars operating in Lines 3518 and 3501 Dallas to El Paso on the outbound trip. On the inbound trip El Paso to Dallas, the Dallas District Conductors handle three Pullman cars operating in Lines 3518, 3501 and 3527.
No Pullman equipment is scheduled to be operated on T&P train 8 east of Dallas.
OPINION OF BOARD: On August 30, 1955 on train No. 8 in Pullman Car McFerrin there was a passenger with a heart condition occupying a Drawing Room. It was decided that because of the passenger's condition the McFerrin car would be operated through to Marshall instead of being detached at Dallas. This created the need for a Conductor or a Porter-in-Charge to take care of this extra work.
The Pullman Agent instructed porter A. G. Raven, who was the regularly assigned Porter on this car and had arrived in Dallas in service on this date, to remain on duty and to operate as Porter-in-Charge from Dallas to Marshall.
The rule involved in this dispute is Rule 64 (b) and the pertinent part of that rule is as follows:
The answer to the disposition of this claim turns on the question of the definition of a Porter-in-Charge. This problem has been the question of much dispute between the parties. It was discussed in the 1950 Emergency Board hearing and was given as a reason why the company should furnish the Organization a list of porters-in-charge, identifying those who no longer desired to perform such service and withdrew from such service. In the record herein there is a lot of discussion as to what is a porter-in-charge. The company says that he was on the roster at El Paso and the Organization says that he was not. The Rule says only that a porter-in-charge may be used but does not define or describe a porter-in-charge. The Organization relies on Rule 16, but Rule 16 is a rate of pay.
The Organization agrees with this description as far as it goes but says that he must also have his equipment.
In this case Carrier assigned Porter Raven to this work and paid him the porter-in-charge rate under Rule 16. They knew that he did not have his equipment when he was assigned to the work. It would seem that the assignment of an employe to a job without proper equipment, as in this case would be the responsibility of the Carrier and not the employe or the Organization. In this particular case he did not need any equipment. The fact that the parties have had negotiations about defining a porter-in-charge indicates that perhaps something should be added to this rule but that is not the province of this Board. Under the wording of this rule and the circumstances in this case it cannot be said that Carrier violated Rule 64.
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: 9793-i4 604