NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Ross Hutchins, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood (GL-5197) that:
(a) The Carrier violated and continues to violate the rules of
the Clerks' Agreement when it required W. A. Thorpe, Head Timekeeper at Elko, Nevada, to perform the duties in connection with the
preparation of advertisements and assignments of Enginemen's vacancies and in the handling of Enginemen's Mileage Reports beginning April 10, 1961, which work had previously been performed by
the Assistant Chief Clerk and continued to be performed by him
except on such days as it was required to be performed by Head
Timekeeper Thorpe, and
(b) Mr. Thorpe is entitled to and shall now be allowed the difference between the Assistant Chief Clerks' rate and that of the
Head Timekeeper for each day of the violation beginning April
10, 1961, and continuing until the violation is corrected.
NOTE: Dates involved in this claim to be determined from
a joint check of the Carrier's records.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Eastern Division Superintendent's Office is located in Elko, Nevada, where a group of clerical positions are located, including the following, which, on April 1, 1961, were held
by the employes as indicated:
Position Held By Rate of Pay
Chief Clerk J. L. Murphy $707 per mo.
Assistant Chief Clerk M. T. Clark 21.85 per day
Head Timekeeper W. A. Thorpe 21.57 per day
Immediately prior to April 1, 1961, these positions were all classified
as five-day positions, and were assigned a work week of Monday through
Friday.
[8681
13344-21
1988
OPINION OF BOARD:
The Assistant Chief Clerk's workweek was.
changed from Monday through Friday to Tuesday through Saturday. The
Assistant Chief Clerk's duties in connection with the advertising and assigning of Enginemen's vacancies and the regulation of Enginemen's mileage
necessary to be performed on Monday was transferred to the Head Timekeeper, a lower rated employe. This claim is filed on behalf of Mr. Thorpe,
the Head Timekeeper, for the difference between the Head Timekeeper rate
of pay and the rate of the Assistant Chief Clerk.
The employes contend there has been a violation of Rule 11, whicb.
provides:
"Employes assigned temporarily to higher rated positions shall
receive the higher rate. Employes assigned temporarily to lower
rated positions shall not have their rates reduced.
A 'temporary assignment' contemplates the fulfillment of the
duties and responsibilities of the position, whether the regular
occupant is
absent or present; merely assisting a higher rated
employe during a temporary increase in the volume of the work
does not constitute a temporary assignment."
Claimant's reliance on Rule 11 is ill founded, because this docket involves a permanent, and not temporary, assignment. The Claimant's reliance upon Awards Nos. 2884, 4499 and 4500 is also fallacious because these
awards involve temporary assignments.
The decisions of the quoted awards are directed to Rule 20 because the
Claimants were denied their regular work. The Claimant in this docket
cites Rule 20 (e), which is as follows:
"Employes shall not be required to suspend work during regular
hours to absorb overtime."
But, no claim is made for loss of regular work in this docket.
The Claimant is respectfully referred to the awards cited above for the
proper application of Rules 11 and 20 (e). Neither the legal theory set out
in the awards quoted by the Claimant nor Rules 11 or 20 (e) match the facts
of this case.
The Carrier says the Claimant urged Rules 7, 8 and 11 on the property.
The Claimant, however, does not urge Rule 7 or 8 in his submission and neither Rule 7 or 8 are considered here.
Rule 13 does not appear to have been raised on the property by the
Claimant, and is not considered here.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
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;
13344-22
1),
89
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That no violation of the Agreement has been shown.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 26th day of February 1965.