NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Ross Hutchins, 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, (hereinafter referred
to as "the Carrier"), violated the effective schedule agreement between
the parties, Regulation 5-B-1 of Title 1 in particular, when on April 12,
1963, it required a regularly assigned train dispatcher to perform
one day of extra work instead of filling said day's service by using
the senior available extra train dispatcher.
(b) The Carrier shall now be required to compensate Extra
Train Dispatcher W. F. Bauer, the then senior available extra train
dispatcher one day's compensation at train dispatchers' rate.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT
OF FACTS:
There is an Agreement in
effect between the parties, copy of which is on file with your Honorable Board,
and the same is made a part of this submission as though fully set out herein.
For ready reference that portion of Regulation 5-B-1 of Part I of the
Agreement material to the claim here before the Board provides that:
"< x a ~~s
(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 Train Dispatchers.
The assignment of such work to extra Train Dispatchers will be
in accordance with seniority and availability except when the use of
the senior extra Train Dispatcher would require payment of the
punitive rate of pay and a junior extra Train Dispatcher is available
who can be used at the pro rata rate of pay. An extra Train Dispatcher will not be considered available within the meaning of this
Regulation (5-B-1) when working a conflicting tour of duty, unless
he can fill the position without violating the Hours of Service Law
[2237
13647-12
234
CONCLUSION
Carrier has shown that the Claimant was not qualified for the district B
vacancy and, therefore, was not available for said vacancy within the meaning and intent of Regulation 5-B-1 (c). Carrier has further shown that the
disputed vacancy was properly filled in accordance with the provisions of
Regulation 5-B-1 (d).
Therefore, the Carrier respectfully requests that your Honorable Board
deny the claim of the Employes in this matter.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
The facts of this action is similar to Award
13646 except the claim is by the junior extra train dispatcher qualified only
on A and where the Carrier failed to transfer the regular train dispatcher
from A to B so the junior man could cover A.
The Claimant contends that if Award 13646 is sustained, this claim must
be denied. We agree.
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;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement has not been violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of June 1965.