THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
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 C. C. King, Atlanta District, that The Pullman Company violated Rules 25, 38 and 64 of the Agreement between The Pullman Company and its Conductors, when, on December 1, 1956:
There is an Agreement between the parties, bearing the effective date of January 1, 1951, and amendments thereto, 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 and relevant parts of the Rules which are directly applicable to this dispute are quoted as follows:
In Award 8219 of the Third Division, the Board likened such practice on its part to rewriting the Agreement. The Board stated, under OPINION OF BOARD, in that Award, as follows:
In a similar opinion, rendered in Third Division Award 5079, the Board stated, under OPINION OF BOARD:
See also Third Division Awards 6291, 6365, 6595, 6833, 6828, 5994, 5500, 4763, 1248, 5864, 9198.
The Board held in Third Division Award 7362 that the burden of establishing facts sufficient to require the allowance of a claim is upon those who seek the allowances. In Award 7362, under OPINION OF BOARD, the Board stated:
The record of the case at hand shows the Organization has failed to establish facts sufficient to show violation by Management of Rules 25, 38 and 64 or to require the allowance of the instant claim.
In this ex parte submission the Company has shown that it did not violate Rules 25, 38, 64 or any other rule of the Agreement. Additionally, the Company has shown that no rule of the Agreement gave to Conductor King the right to extra work arising in the Atlanta District or to payment under the circumstances of this case for work which he did not perform. Further, the Company has shown that, in effect, the Organization improperly is attempting to persuade the Board to extend the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding of December 20, 1950, to cover a situation which by its terms it does not cover and never was intended to cover. Finally, the Company has shown that awards of the National Railroad Adjustment Board support the Company's position in this dispute.
The claim in behalf of Conductor King is without merit and should be denied.
All data presented 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: This is a dispute between the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, Pullman System and The Pullman Company. 10723-16 940
Southern train #47 arrived Atlanta 9:50 A. M. It departed 10:15, fifteen minutes late. The record shows that Conductor King arrived on #47.
Conductor Naish was supposed to report at 9:15. He did not report for duty. He did not notify management that he would not work as assigned.
Superintendent Devlin had the duties of platform man. He discovered that Naish had failed to report for duty, 3 to 5 minutes after the train arrived. He went aboard the train and started looking for Conductor King for the purpose of assigning the trip to him. There were no extra conductors available. At least 10 to 15 minutes later Superintendent Devlin went to the signout office and found that King had left. Conductor King did not leave early.
There, as here, the train operated without a conductor. There, as here, a conductor was assigned and failed to work. There, as here, the Carrier made every reasonable effort to obtain a conductor to work.
The Petitioner alleges that Carrier was negligent in that it did not require King to remain on duty until relieved.
We are of the opinion that the Carrier did all that was reasonably possible to provide for the operation of a conductor on Southern train #47, We cannot say that Carrier's operating rules are not sufficient to reasonably insure the presence of a conductor.
The Carrier must do more than just assign a conductor to the train. It is our opinion that the Carrier must do all reasonably possible to provide for the operation of a train with a conductor when so required by the Agreement.
For the foregoing reasons, we believe there was no violation of the Agreement.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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