STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5570) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The facts in this case are not in dispute, and are comparatively simple. The claimant employe, Edward Canada, is a Mail Handler on the extra board of Mail Handlers as established by a Memorandum Agreement between the parties signed April 25, 1957, and amended October 1, 1959, copy of which is attached as Employes' Exhibit 1. The Memorandum Agreement is also identifiable as Appendix H of the printed Agreement between the parties of October 1, 1942, as revised effective June 1, 1961, copies of which have been furnished the Board.
On Friday, October 11, 1963, claimant Canada was called in regular order and worked 3:30 P. M. to 12:00 Midnight. He was not called or notified to report for an assignment to the shift with a starting time of 12:01 A. M., Saturday, October 12, 1963, but another extra board employe, namely, David Harris, junior to Canada, was called and worked that date and shift. The failure to call Canada is the cause of this dispute.
Claimant Canada was called and did perform work Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, October 9, 10 and 11, 1963, prior to the date of the claim. He was not called to work any shift Saturday, October 12, 1963, the date of the claim, but was called and did work Sunday, October 13, 1963, on the 12:01 A. M. to 8:30 A. M. shift. He worked only four days in his work week.
Claim was filed for and in behalf of Claimant Canada November 1, 1963, and thereafter appealed timely to the highest official of the Carrier des-
Under the above rule it is clear that extra employes on the extra board are to be called for short vacancies; that they will be given lys hour calls, and, for failure to respond are marked off for twenty-four hours.
Claimant Canada was obviously not on the extra board while covering the 3:30 P. M. to Midnight assignment. Not being on the extra board, he was not available for call.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant is a Mail Handler on the extra board of Mail Handlers as established by a Memorandum Agreement between the parties.
On Friday, October 11, 1963, Claimant was called in regular order and worked 3:30 P. M. to 12:00 Midnight. He was not called or notified to report for an assignment to the shift with a starting time of 12:01 A. M., Saturday, October 12, 1963-an employe, junior to Claimant, was called and worked that date and shift. The failure to call Claimant gave rise to the dispute.
The Carrier's defenses are: (1) Claimant was not available; and, (2) it was not the practice to work an employe 16 continuous hours.
Practice does not reform the clear mandates of the Memorandum Agreement.
While it is unusual to find an agreement permitting an employe to work 16 continuous hours without penalty payment for overtime, this particular Agreement does so when the shifts worked are in two calendar days. Therefore, the "applicable rate" prayed for in paragraph (b) of the Claim is pro rata rate. 13944-6 607