NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Claimant has established and holds seniority as a laborer in the track Sub-department as of October 1, 1926. Mr. Irvin Bohanan has established and holds seniority as a laborer in the Track Department as of May 1, 1934.
On July 28, 1956, claimant Carr advised Track Supervisor J. A. Hopper that he was cut off in force reduction and requested permission to displace Laborer Bohanan as of the beginning of the work period on August 1, 1956. Even though the claimant held the greater seniority, his request was declined.
Consequently, a claim was filed in behalf of the claimant, requesting that he be allowed eight hours' straight time pay for August 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15, 1956, because of the violation of his seniority rights.
The claim was handled in the usual manner on the property and declined at all stages of the appeals procedure.
The Agreement in effect between the two parties to this dispute dated August 1, 1947, together with supplements, amendments, and interpretations thereto are by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The pertinent portion of Rule 3 reads as follows:
Claim being without any basis and the point at issue having heretofore been conceded by the Brotherhood, the Board cannot do other than make a denial award.
All evidence here submitted in support of Carrier's position is known to employe representatives.
Carrier not having seen the Brotherhood's submission, reserves the right, after doing so, to make response thereto.
OPINION OF BOARD: The issue in this case is interpretation and application of the following provision of a Memorandum of Agreement, herein called the Memorandum, executed by the parties on May 29, 1956, effective June 1, 1956:
Claimant, a laborer, who had been cut off in a force reduction had seniority dating from October 1, 1926. In the same seniority classification there was a laborer, named Bohanan, with seniority dating from May 1, 1934. Bohanan, at all times material herein, worked on a track motor car used by the Assistant Track Foreman, T. J. Workman.
Claimant, under date of July 28, 1956, sent a note to the Division Engineer which reads:
The record in this case supports the following findings: (1) the positions of laborers were bulletined for assignment to gangs and not to specific posi- 11857-13 133
tions with defined duties; (2) laborers assigned to a gang performed the work of the gang as directed by the Foreman or Track Supervisor; (3) no laborer had sole ownership of a position, in the gang, having specifically defined duties; (4) traditionally and historically the Assistant Track Supervisor selected, at his whim, a laborer from the gang for work on the Supervisor's track motor car; and (5) neither the Agreement or the Memorandum restricts the Carrier's prerogative to assign work to each laborer in a gang as it chooses. Succinctly, the work of a gang belongs to the gang as a whole.
Carrier admits that Claimant as an employe "cut off in a force reduction" had the contractual right to "displace any employe his junior employed in any seniority rank in which he holds seniority." Also, it admits that Claimant's seniority prevailed over that of Bobanan. But, it refused to honor Claimant's demand for the motor car job which was being performed by Bohanan. It did offer to Claimant the right to exercise his seniority but refused to allow him to specify what work he would do in the gang.
Petitioner argues that the provision of the Memorandum quoted, supra, vested Claimant with the right not only to displace a junior employe but also with the right to demand that he be assigned to the particular work being performed, at the time, by the junior employe he chose to displace. We would be persuaded to favor this argument if the junior employe held a position with peculiar bulletined duties.
We note that Claimant made a demand to be assigned to particular work in the gang-not to displacing Bohnnan. Under the Agreement no laborer has a contractual right to any particular work of the gang on the basis of seniority. We find nothing in the Agreement or Memorandum which would support a finding that an employe exercising his seniority rights in displacing an employe in the gang enjoys a more favorable position than the displaced employe or other employes in the gang. We will deny the claim.
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:
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