BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
(1) Carrier violated the rules of the current Clerks Agreement when effective on Sunday, March 18, 1961 and on eight (8) Sundays thereafter at its freight station in Caribou, Maine, Carrier unilaterally assigned clerical duties and work heretofore performed by Freight Clerk at this point on the rest day of that position to an employe (Telegraph Operator) of another craft and class who held no seniority rights under said Agreement for its performance.
(2) Carrier shall now compensate Freight Office Clerk, Mr. Gerald E. Buchanan for wage loss sustained under Call Rule 24, of the current Rules Agreement as follows: -
In conclusion, the Carrier asserts the claim is without merit; it is not supported by rule, precedent or practice and should be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant Buchanan holds a regular position of freight clerk at the Caribou, Maine, freight station. His regular work-week is Monday through Friday, inclusive, with rest days, Saturday and Sunday. There is no regular relief clerk employed to perform work on Buchanan's rest days. During the four years previous to this claim, Buchanan had been called to perform necessary work occurring on his rest days. Commencing March 19, 1961 the Carrier used the telegrapher to perform work at the station on Sundays, which was performed during the week by Buchanan.
The employes urge that this work belongs to them exclusively, and that Buchanan should have been called to perform it on the Sundays in question.
Carrier argues that the work is not covered by the Scope Rule, nor is it the type of work exclusively performed, on a system-wide basis through practice, custom and tradition, by these employes. 13249--8 353
This Board has held on numerous occasions, that where the work at a particular location decreases, and there is telegrapher work remaining, it is proper to retain the telegrapher, and assign to him clerical work to fill out his tour of duty, when he is not occupied with telegraphy or communication duties.
In this particular case, the record shows that the work load decreased on Sundays, so that only one employe was required. Telegrapher duties remained to be performed. Therefore, in essence, the Carrier abolished the position of clerk, by failing to call him on Sunday, and assigned this work to the telegrapher. We are of the opinion that the Carrier had the prerogative to act in this manner.
There is no question that if the volume of work for the regular days of the position would have so diminished, the Carrier could have properly acted in the same manner, and assigned the remaining duties of the clerk to the telegrapher. We see no reason that this same procedure would not be applicable in the instant case.
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