THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5440) that:
1. Claimant Wilson seniority date November 14, 1936, occupies a position titled Bill Clerk at the Carrier's Camak, Georgia agency. Claimant Wilson occupied this position for many years before February, 1951, when he was temporarily assigned to an official position, not covered by the Clerks' Agreement. This promotion of Claimant required that the position be bulletined. A copy of the bulletin is attached and identified as Employes' Exhibit A. It will be noted that the position was then styled "Agency Clerk." The designation, however, was changed to "Bill Clerk" when in 1952 Claimant Wilson returned to Camak, Georgia, and the second trick Bill Clerk position was established. The second trick position was soon abolished, however, and as of the dates covered by this claim, claimant Wilson was the incumbent of the only Bill Clerk position at Camak, he having returned to it after completing his temporary assignment, to an official position, a circumstance which did not require that the position be again bulletined. Therefore, Employes' Exhibit A represents the Carrier's description of Claimant's duties, as they were last bulletined for bids from employes covered by the Clerks' Agreement.
2. In addition to Claimant Wilson's five-day position of Bill Clerk, there are three seven-day positions of Yard Clerk, with relief or swing assignments, so arranged that Yard Clerks are on duty around the clock, seven days a week.
The so-called "pertinent papers" were copies of exchanges of correspondence between local chairman and carrier's trainmaster and general superintendent and indicated the claim was based on the allegation that billing on dates in question was not performed by a clerk, but was performed by agent and telegraph operator . On two occasions the trainmaster requested local chairman to show proof that this was done, but none was offered. In letter of March 6, 1963, from local chairman to general chairman, referring the claim to the general chairman for processing, the local chairman said:
At all levels of handling on the property, carrier officials pointed out to Petitioner's representatives that the work was performed by a clerk and at no time did Petitioner offer any proof to the contrary.
It is the position of carrier that claimant does not have the exclusive right to perform all billing at Camak. The work complained of here was performed in the same craft and same seniority district. There is no prohibition against carrier blanking a clerk's job on a holiday and having some minor portion of the work performed by other clerks who are on duty.
In Carrier's opinion, the claim is without merit, and we respectfully request it be declined.
OPINION OF BOARD: The question presented is whether or not Carrier violated its Agreement with the Petitioner when it assigned holiday work which was usually done by Claimant to other employes, who performed this work in addition to their regular work.
In a companion case, decided at the same time and involving the same Claimant, Award 12956, the question was whether or not Saturday relief work formerly performed by a regular relief clerk could be transferred to another relief clerk . Since such work was made part of a regular relief assignment as a result of a reduction of force, we held the transfer proper.
Here, however, we are dealing with holiday work which this Board has held to be work on an unassigned day. It is, therefore, subject to Rule 38 (f) unless a reason be established that it be treated otherwise. Rule 38 (f) and (i) provide:
Carrier asserts that the work was not exclusively that of the Claimant and that other clerks performed this work. The record indicates that the Claimant normally, customarily and regularly performed this work. Carrier at no time stated that the clerks to whom the work was assigned on these holidays had ever done this work before, and it ignored Petitioner's request for a joint check to establish who did the work.
The question involved here is not one of exclusivity. Rule 38 (f) establishes who is entitled to perform the work on an unassigned day; either an available extra or unassigned employe or the regular employe. It may not be performed by any other employe unless the work is normally part of that employe's position. In such a case, however, the other employe would not be performing holiday work of the employe, but his own.
Carrier argues that there is no prohibition against Carrier's blanking a clerk's job on a holiday and having some minor portion of the work per. formed by other clerks who are on duty. In Award No. 8563, we said:
We hold that Carrier may not assign holiday work to other employes contrary to Rule 38.
Although Carrier asserts that the duties assigned were minor, there is nothing in the record on which to reach that conclusion. Carrier did not take that position on the property. There is, therefore, no purpose in discussing what effect, if any, the transfer of minor duties would have.
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