TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
men as yard clerks, and, in this instance, a spare station clerk in a station assignment which no one in the telegraphers' craft wanted.
These several claims, as submitted, are for time and one-half rate. Your attention is called to the fact, without prejudice to the position already taken by this Company, that there is no merit in these claims. This Division has previously ruled in numerous awards that the punitive rate will not be allowed unless the work claimed is in fact performed, and payment at pro-rata rate is proper in instances where the Board has found that a claimant was improperly held off an assignment.
It is apparent that the Company made every effort to provide continuous service to its customers, and agreed-upon relief to its employes. We feel, therefore, that there was ample justification for bringing this additional employe into station service, especially since no employe represented by the Organization was deprived of employment by this move.
In view of the foregoing, and for reasons stated, these claims should be denied.
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose when the Carrier used a clerk, who held no seniority under the Telegraphers' Agreement, at the time, to work in place of the agent at New Limerick, absent account of illness.
The Carrier's action was taken when the one available spare employe who could have been required to work at New Limerick declined the assignment. Two other spare employes who held no seniority in the district involved also declined to work there.
It appears that the Carrier does not seriously disagree with the Employes' contention that it was improper to use an employe of another craft in relief service. The employe so used was later accorded a seniority date under the Telegraphers' Agreement, without objection.
Under the circumstances of this case, we think Item 1 of the claim should be sustained.
Item 2, however, cannot be sustained. The claims in Item 2 do not involve employes who allegedly should have been used at New Limerick. Instead, they are for regular assigned employes on other positions, on dates they were relieved for their accumulated rest days. The Organization's argument is based on the theory that instead of relieving the Claimants for their rest periods, the Carrier should have required them to work. Consequently, the spare man would then have been available for the work assignment at New Limerick.
The Employes, however, have neglected to support this theory with either facts or citation of pertinent authority. They have failed to show that the Carrier violated any rule when it provided rest day relief for the Claimants. In essence, the Employes have not established any basis for an award in favor of the Claimants. It is also noteworthy that certain of the claims were not properly appealed on the property and thus could not be considered in any event.
Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, and without establishing a precedent for any other case, we will sustain Item 1 and deny Item 2 of the claim. 14062_-26 643