PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
 FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:




EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is between the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes as the representatives of the class or craft of employes in which the Claimant in this case held a position and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company-hereinafter referred to as the Brotherhood and the Carrier, respectively.


There is in effect a Rules Agreement, effective May 1, 1942, except as amended, covering Clerical, Other Office, Station and Storehouse Employes between the Carrier and this Brotherhood which the Carrier has filed with the National Mediation Board in accordance with Section 5, Third (e), of the Railway Labor Act, and also with the National Railroad Adjustment Board. This Rules Agreement will be considered a part of this Statement of Facts. Various rules thereof may be referred to herein from time to time without quoting in full.


Claimant L. L. Scott held a regular position as Stores Attendant, Hawthorne Storeroom, Indianapolis, Indiana, tour of duty 6:00 P. M. to 3:00 A. M., rest days Saturday and Sunday, with a seniority date on the Seniority Roster of the Southwestern Region, in Group 2.


H. C. Perry, a Relief Store Attendant, was assigned, during the period covered by this claim, to a temporary vacancy in position of Shipper and Re-



11070-I1 482

 tion, the right to produce competent evidence in its own behalf at a proper trial of this matter and the establishment of a record of all of the same.

 All data contained herein have been presented to the employe involved or to his duly authorized representatives.

OPINION OF BOARD: The facts in this case are aptly stated in an agreed upon joint statement. Which reads:






The only error in the statement is that the Claimants regularly assigned hours were from 3,00 P. M. until 11,00 P. M. Further it is agreed the only days we are concerned with are October 16, in which 6r/z hours overtime was paid, and October 19, in which 11/z hours overtime was paid.

 It is the position of the Employes that the Carrier violated the Rules Agreement, particularly Rules 2-A-1(e) and 3-A-1, when it failed to notify the Claimant, of a known vacancy of Truck Driver, and assigned a junior employe, to fill the vacancy.

 The position of the Carrier as stated in the Joint Statement of Agreed Upon Facts is as follows:

11070-12 483



It is undisputed that the Claimant is the senior Employe so we will not concern ourselves with Rule 3-A-1. We must now look to Rule 2-A-1(e) to determine if the Carrier was in violation. Rule reads:



According to the Rule there are certain conditions which must be met before an Employe has the right to be assigned to a vacancy. These conditions are: 1 Seniority. 2. That employe is qualified. 3. The employe is available. 4. That the employe requested the vacancy. 5. No additional expense to the Company is involved. It is true the Claimant had seniority, it is debatable as to his being qualified, available or that he had requested the vacancy. However we must determine whether the Claimants being placed on the job would require additional expense to the Carrier. The Claimant was the only Group 2 Store Attendant on duty on the second trick, had he been assigned the vacancy it would have required another employe to fill his position, due to the absence of an available extra or furloughed employe. ,This would have required the use of a regular employe at overtime rates. This overtime payment certainly would entail additional expense to the Company. See Award 1723 (Fourth Division)". This overtime payment certainly would involve "additional expense to the Company:" within the plain and usual language employed in Rule 5-A-2. The expense proviso of that Rule is stated clearly and without qualification and affords no basis for Petitioner's contention. that only additional yardmaster expense may be considered." The claim was denied in Award 1723 (Fourth Division).


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




Executive Secretary Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 25th day of January 1963.