THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS AND BRAKEMEN,
PULLMAN SYSTEM
there was an extra assignment out of the Dallas District on Frisco train #518 from Dallas, Texas to Tulsa, Oklahoma, returning in deadhead service from Tulsa to Dallas. Reporting time for this extra assignment in Dallas was 9:20 P. M.
1959, reported at the Pullman office and was advised by Signout Clerk Sanford that he (Conductor Talley) was the only extra conductor in town, and that there was an extra assignment on Frisco train #518 with a reporting time of 9:20 P. M., same date. Conductor Talley informed Signout Clerk Sanford that he would go to his home and obtain some rest so that he would be in condition to make the trip.
OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in this case are not in dispute. The signout period for extra conductors in the Dallas District was from 2:00 P. M. until 2:30 P. M. Extra assignments were filled from 2:31 P. M. on the day they arose until 2:30 P. M. the following day. On May 20, 1959, the Claimant, who was an extra conductor, arrived in Dallas in the morning, and reported at the Pullman Company office at about 11:00 A. M. He was the only extra conductor in town. He was told by the signout clerk that there was an extra assignment on train 518 from Dallas, Texas, to Tulsa, Oklahoma and deadhead on pass on train 517 from Tulsa to Dallas. The reporting time in Dallas was 9:20 P. M. on May 20, 1959.
The record shows that the Claimant told Miss Sanford, the signout clerk in the Pullman Company office in Dallas that he would "rush on home and get some rest and be ready to go back to Tulsa that night. . ." He went home and went to bed about noon of that day.
At 2:30 P. M., the signout clerk telephoned the Claimant's home for the purpose of officially giving him the assignment. There was no answer to the telephone call. The signout clerk called again at 2:20 P. M., 2:29 P. M., 3:00 P. M., 3:20 P. M., and 3:30 P. M. and there was still no response to each of the telephone calls. At 3:30 P. M. on May 20th, the signout clerk called regular assigned conductor C. M. Nichol and gave him the assignment. There were no other extra conductors available or expected to arrive between the close of the signout period and the reporting time of 9:30 P. M.
The Claimant was home fast asleep and did not hear the telephone ring on each of the occasions. He awoke at about 5:00 P. M. and he tried to call the Pullman Company office, but it was closed and there was no one available. He was not furnished with the home telephone number of the signout clerk.
The Claimant prepared himself and proceeded to the Railway Station ready to go to work. He arrived there at approximately 9:15 P. M. and he was advised that Mr. Nichol had been assigned. Upon learning this fact, he made inquiry and was able to obtain the home telephone of Miss Sanford, the signout clerk. He so telephoned her and she replied that she could not change the assignment and that since he was not available when she called him, she was obliged to permit Mr. Nichol to continue the run.
A claim was filed on behalf of the Claimant which was properly processed through all stages of handling on the property.
The Organization contends that the Carrier violated Rule 36 which reads as follows:
It is the Organization's position that an emergency did not arise since the Claimant had advised the Carrier that he would be available for the extra run and that in no event should conductor Nichol been assigned until such time close to the 9:20 P. M. reporting time as is reasonably necessary. The Carrier on the other hand contends that the emergency occurred between 2:00 P. M. and 2:30 P. M. on May 20, which was the regular signout time for extra conductors, and since the Claimant did not respond to several telephone calls to his home he was not available for that assignment. 10514-17 794
been initially required to further study what the parties meant by the term "available". The parties, however, have given meaning and intent to these Rules by reason of certain memorandums and correspondence which passed between the Carrier and the Organization.
On September 20, 1946, Assistant Vice President Leach issued instructions which in part reads as follows:
Also, the Company's instructions to district representatives relating to unfilled assignments are:
The Board is of the opinion that the Claimant in this case "became available" when he advised Miss Sanford, the signout clerk, at approximately 11:00 A. M. on May 20 that he would take the run and that he was going home for some sleep. We do not believe that the language in Rule 38 which provides that unassigned local conductors shall be available during the signout period means strictly that such conductors must necessarily and solely indicate their availability only during the signout hours. In other words, we do not believe that the Claimant in this case was required to make known his availability only between the hours of 2:00 P. M. and 2:30 P. M. The fact is that the Carrier admits that the signout clerk called the Claimant as late as 3:20 P. M. or an hour after the end of the signout period. This is an admission that even the Carrier did not give too much credence to the literal interpretation of the contract language. Our conclusion is fully supported by the Carrier's interpretation of Rule 38.
Further, under Rule 38 the Carrier could have notified the Claimant by wire, and if it had done so "the transmission of such a wire will constitute assignment of that conductor and acceptance of that assignment by the extra conductor". If instead of telephoning to the employe's residence, the signout clerk had wired the Claimant at 2:00 P. M. or thereafter, the Claimant would not have been required to call the signout clerk or anyone else in the Carrier's office to officially advise them that he was "available" for such assignment. This condition is not changed by the mere fact that the Carrier elected to telephone the Claimant instead of wiring him.
On the basis of the record, the provisions of the Agreement, as well as the understanding had between the parties, it was the Carrier's obligation to exercise greater care in making the assignment in this case. The signout clerk was not diligent in light of the fact that she knew and had personally heard from the Claimant that he would have been available for the assignment.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: 10514-19 796