NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Benjamin H. Wolf,
Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
AMERICAN TRAIN DISPATCHERS ASSOCIATION
THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers
Association that:
(a) The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, thereinafter referred
to as "the Carrier," violated the currently effective Agreement be
tween the parties, Regulation 5-B-1 (c), Part III, thereof in particular,
when upon being advised, at or about 10:35 P. M. February 3, 1962,
that Extra Power Director A. V. Santawasso would be unable to
report for duty Carrier failed to call Extra Power Director W. W.
Thatcher, the next senior Extra Power Director to perform service.
(b) The Carrier shall now be required to compensate Claimant
W. W. Thatcher eight (8) hours at pro rata rate of Power Director,
for
service he was contractually entitled to perform on 12:00 Midnight to 8:00 A. M. assignment, February 4, 1962.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is a Schedule Agreement in effect between the parties,
effective June 1, 1960, a copy of which is
on file with the Board, and which by this reference is made a part of this
submission as though fully set out herein.
Part III of said
Agreement is applicable to the Claimant herein, an Extra
Power Director. For the Board's ready reference the pertinent applicable
provisions of the Relief and Extra Work Regulation (5-B-1) are quoted:
u+ s s s e
(c) Except as provided in the foregoing paragraph (b) of this
regulation (5-B-1),
relief assignments of less than five (5) days
per week will be performed by extra employes.
The assignment of such work to extra employes will be in accordance with their seniority in the particular class and their availability, except when the use of the senior extra
employe would require
payment of the punitive rate of pay and a junior extra employe is
[695]
12400-17
7 1i
OPINION OF BOARD:
The facts are not in dispute. On February 3, 1962,
a temporary vacancy occurred in the position of Power Director, with a tour
of duty beginning at 12:00 Midnight. At 1:20 P. M., that day, Carrier properly
assigned Santawasso, the senior extra Power Director. Santawasso, who lived
in Princeton Junction, New Jersey, proceeded to Trenton, where he expected
to board P.R.R. No. 158, scheduled to leave at 10:25 P. M., and arrive in New
York City at 11:35 P. M., in ample time for him to report at the beginning
of his tour. He learned that P.R.R. No. 158 was running late and was not
expected to arrive in New York until at least 12:30 A. M. He telephoned the
Power Director's office at 10:35 P. M., and advised that he would be late.
Train No. 158 developed further trouble after leaving Trenton and did not
arrive in New York until 1:10 A. M.
Claimant Thatcher, the next available extra Power Director, lived in
Newark, 11 miles away, close enough to be able to reach the Power Director's office before Midnight if he had been notified to do so immediately after
Santawasso telephoned. Carrier, admittedly, did not notify Thatcher.
The Petitioner relies on the following rule:
"RULE 5-B-1
(c) Except as provided in the foregoing paragraph (b) of this
Regulation (5-B-1), relief requirements of less than five (5) days
per week will be performed by extra employes.
The assignment of such work to extra employes will be in accordance with their seniority in the particular class and their availability,
except when the use of the senior extra employe would require payment of the punitive rate of pay and a junior extra employe is available who can be used at the pro rata rate of pay. An extra employe
will not be considered available within the meaning of this Regulation (5-B-1) when working a conflicting tour of duty, and unless
he is so situated that he can reach the point where the office is
located in time to commence work at the starting time of the position."
Petitioner concedes that Santawasso was properly assigned. It argued,
however, that when he telephoned at 10:35 P. M. that he would be late, he
became unavailable according to Regulation 5-B-1 (c) and the Carrier was
obliged to notify and assign the next extra Power Director.
The interpretation of the Rule urged by the Organization would lead to
an absurd result. If, regardless of the circumstances, the prospective lateness of an employe were to create a vacancy to which the next senior furloughed employe became entitled, the employe who comes late, having been
unavailable at the start of the trick, must be sent home. This was not the
intention of the parties in writing the Rule. Mere lateness, especially when
beyond the control of the employe, is not covered by this rule or any other
in the Agreement. The Carrier satisfied the conditions of the Rule when it
assigned Santawasso and his lateness did not require the Carrier to seek out
the next available man.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
~4co--is 7
10
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 the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of April 1964.