BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY-TEXAS AND LOUISIANA
LINES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood, (GI,5508), that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Mrs. Ruth Alexander was employed by the carrier as laborer in its Store Department, Houston, Texas, on October 27, 1943, and continued to hold a regular assignment as Laborer in that department until May 9, 1962. As a result of a reduction in the laborer forces effective May 9, 1962, she made request to displace Storehouse Laborer Monie Baylor, her junior, which request was denied by Purchasing Agent Martin and she was advised by carrier's representative to turn in her time card and not report for work until she was given notice to do so, thus Mr. Martin not only declined her request to displace Monie Baylor but any other laborer her junior. She then on May 18, filed claim for a day's pay at the pro rata rate of Storehouse Laborer for May 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 1962 and each succeeding day thereafter when the carrier used Monle Baylor to perform Laborer's work. The claim was declined by Mr. Martin on May 29, 1962. On June 2, 1962 she advised Mr. Martin that his decision wasn't acceptable and she was turning the claim over to her Local Chairman. On June 10, 1962 the Local Chairman wrote Mr. Martin requesting the claim be allowed until she leas given an opportunity to prove that she could do
CARRIER'S EXHIBIT NO. 3 reproduces this Award of Special Board of Adjustment No. 100.
Carrier has shown that Mrs. Ruth Alexander was employed as common laborer in the Stores Department at Houston when it was impossible because of the War to employ men capable of performing all of the work of common laborer. Carrier has shown that Mrs. Alexander was given employment as long as there was a position available to her by reason of her seniority, the duties of which were light enough for her to perform. Carrier has shown that the decision to deny Mrs. Alexander the right to displace on a job, all of the duties of which she was not capable of performing, was a proper one. Carrier has shown that Claimant and her representatives did not avail them selves of the opportunity under the rules for a hearing but were content to rely upon seniority alone as a basis for the claim here presented . Carrier has shown that claimant has failed in her responsibility to present positive proof to support this claim.
Wherefore, premise considered, Carrier respectfully requests that the Board deny in all its particulars this claim.
OPINION OF BOARD: This is a companion case to Award No. 14055. It involves the same parties, Agreement, issue and measure of proof. For the reasons stated in that Award we will deny the instant claim.
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
LABOR MEMBER'S DISSENT TO AWARD 14056,
DOCKET CL-14835