BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
(Pacific Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
1. There is in evidence an Agreement bearing effective date October 1, 1940, reprinted May 2, 1955, including revisions, between the Southern Pacific Company (Pacific Lines) (hereinafter referred to as the Carrier) and its employes represented by the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes, which Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement) is on file with this Board and by reference thereto is hereby made a part of this dispute.
2. Louis Cervantez (hereinafter referred to as the Claimant) entered the service of the Carrier on September 22, 1952, and in accordance with Rule 26(a) of the Agreement, established said date as his seniority date on Sacramento General Stores Seniority Roster No. 1. The Claimant worked continuously until February 28, 1958, at which time, due to reduction in Store Department forces, he was no longer able to occupy a regular assignment in line with his seniority.
3. On or about June 6, 1958, the Claimant submitted a request for roundtrip transportation on Carrier's train, Sacramento to Los Angeles, for himself and dependent members of his family to be used when his children would enjoy their school vacation. The request was denied by the General Storekeeper.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant held a position as Clerk in Carrier's General Stores. His seniority date is September 22, 1952. On February 28, 1958 Claimant was laid off due to a reduction in the work force. While on layoff, Claimant requested free round trip transportation between Sacramento and Los Angeles for himself, his wife and four children. Carrier declined the request for round trip transportation, but allowed one way free transportation from Sacramento to Los Angeles.
Petitioner contends that Claimant was entitled to free round trip transportation under Rule 58(a) which reads:
The question at issue is whether or not Claimant was "given the same consideration in granting free transportation as is granted other employes in the service."
Carrier contends that for at least 30 years it has been Carrier's policy not to allow free round trip transportation to laid off employes. In a letter dated October 13, 1958, Carrier wrote to Petitioner's Division Chairman, in part, as follows:
There is some incongruity with the above statement. Carrier is obligated to give laid off employes preference in the order of seniority when the work force is increased or vacancies occur. Specifically, Rule 41(f) says:
Carrier was obligated to recall Claimant in order of seniority whenever there was an increase in the work force or when a vacancy existed. If Claimant, after receiving free transportation to Los Angeles, had succeeded in finding employment in that city and, if subsequently, a vacancy arose to which Claimant was entitled, he would have had to pay his own transportation back to Sacramento to fill such a vacancy. While Carrier's policy may be honorable, it is not logical. 12121-12 854
But the issue does not depend upon the Carrier's alleged policy as above noted. Petitioner made an independent survey of Carrier's policy as applied to train service employes of the same Carrier. This survey, which was submitted to the Carrier in conference, and which appears in the record, may be summarized as follows:
Carrier does not deny this practice for train service employes. It argues only that Claimant is in the same status as train service employes who are given cut-off letters.
Train service employes who are "unable to hold regular assignments but called under applicable agreement provisions are . . . granted free round trip transportation . " Claimant, because of force reduction, was unable to hold a regular assignment. He was subject to call under Rule 41(f) whenever there was an increase in the work force or a vacancy existed. We do not see how his position is different from train service employes in category 2.
Train service employes, unable to hold regular positions and are not given cut-off letters, are listed as Extra Employes. They are subject to call whenever a job vacancy exists and the Carrier desires to fill that vacancy. Claimant, too, was unable to hold a regular position and he, too, was entitled to be called in his seniority order when a job vacancy existed which the Carrier elected to fill. Train service employes in category 3 are not subject to such rights.
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