Award No. 11058
Docket No. CL-10917
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Preston J. Moore, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(Chesapeake District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood:
(a) That the Carrier violated the terms of Clerks' Agreement
No. 8, when, on Christmas Day, December 25, 1957, (Wednesday)
and again on New Year's Day, January 1, 1958 (Wednesday) it
failed and refused to call and use Carl E. Huggins, Yard Clerk,
Marion, Ohio, Position No. A-16, to work extra time in the performance of his own regularly assigned class of work in the freight
yard at Marion, and instead called and required F. M. Coburn, Chief
Clerk to Freight Agent to perform duties of Yard Clerk belonging to
position occupied by the claimant, Huggins, and
(b) That Carl E. Huggins be allowed two days' pay at the
holiday rate of pay-time and one-half times the straight time rate
of $18.24 per day of 8 hours.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. On the dates
covered by
this claim Claimant Carl E. Huggins was regularly assigned to the position
of Yard Clerk A-16, Marion, Ohio. The duties of Claimant's position were
to make yard checks, check cars to and from connections, making interchange
reports and doing teletype work on consists and interchange. The position was
assigned to work 8:00 A. M. to 4:00 P. M., and was
relieved on
Saturday and
Sunday by a regularly established
relief position
.
Claimant Huggins' position had previously been worked regularly on
holidays, but on
December 23,
1957 and again on December 30, 1957, Claimant Huggins was notified that his position would be "laid in" on December 25,
1957 and January 1, 1958 (Employes' Exhibits "A" and "B").
[1661
11058-15
180
CONCLUSION
The Carrier has shown that the performance of the work in question was
in accordance with Rule 35 (b), and that the work being on an unassigned
day the provisions of Rule 35 (a) are not applicable in a manner which
operates to exclude the provisions of Rule 35 (b).
The claim should be denied in its entirety.
All data contained in this submission have been discussed in conference
or by correspondence with the Employe Representatives.
OPINION OF BOARD:
This is a dispute between The Brotherhood of
Railway and Steamship Clerks and The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company.
On December 25, 1957 and January 1, 1958, the Carrier required the
Chief Clerk to perform work on these two holidays. The
Employes contend
that he performed duties assigned to and regularly performed by Claimant.
There is in effect between the parties the following Agreements.
"RULE 35-WORKING OVERTIME
"(a) Except where it is otherwise agreed between the proper
officer and Division Chairman or Local Chairman authorized to act
in his stead, in working overtime before or after assigned hours,
employes regularly assigned to class of work for which overtime is
necessary shall be given preference; the same principle shall apply
in working extra time on holidays; the same principle shall also apply
in working extra time on unassigned days except as provided in Section (b) of this rule.
"(b) Work on Unassigned Days. Where work is required
by the Carrier to be performed on a day which is not a part of
any assignment, it may be performed by an available `cut off' (furloughed) employe who will otherwise not have 40 hours of work
that week; in all other cases by the regular employe. In working
regular employes hereunder, it is understood that where a small
amount of work is required on each of two or more positions and
only one employe is required, the employe regularly assigned to the
majority of the work to be performed will be used."
The above rule is different in that many Agreements consider a Holiday
as an unassigned day. For that reason this opinion is confined to properties
having a similar Agreement as the one contained herein.
Award 10848 deals with the same problem and same Agreement on the
same property. We concur with the opinion expressed therein.
For the foregoing reasons, we believe the Agreement was violated and
that the Claimant is entitled to one day's pay at the rate of time and onehalf each of the two days.
11058-16
181
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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
That the Agreement was violated.
AWARD
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT
BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 24th day of January 1963.