BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5466) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is employed in the Mechanical Department, Paducah Shops, Paducah, Kentucky, a force of employes who perform clerical and related work in connection with the operation of this facility coming within scope of the Clerks' Agreement with the Illinofis Central Railroad Company (Carrier) governing the working conditions of the employes, effective June 23, 1922, as subsequently revised.
As information to your Honorable Board, the employes in this particular group are carried on two separate seniority rosters: The clerical employes are shown on Roster 1, and janitors are shown on Roster 4, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Rule 4 of the effective Agreement between. the parties. Insofar as this instant dispute is concerned, only Roster 4 is involved here.
Prior to January 1, 1963, Roster No. 4, captioned "Shop Superintendent -Mechanical Department -Paducah Shops" contained but one name,that of H. S. Jagoe, employed as Porter, with seniority date of September 5, 1951. In conformity with the provisions obtaining in Rule 5 of the effective Agreement, on January 1, 1963,Shop Superintendent C. T. Eaker, issued a new Roster No. 4 for year 1963 showing two names thereon reading as follows:
A) that there are specific circumstances in which the clerical seniority rights of an employe may be forfeited, and
B) that none of these circumstances are present or applicable to the instant dispute and, therefore, that there is no reason, contractual or otherwise, for Mr. Broady's clerical seniority rights to be forfeited.
The record does not reveal that Broady worked again in the porter job during 1962. His name appeared on Carrier's January 1, 1963 Roster No. 4 as "Extra Porter"-the only person with such title. Mr. Jagoe continued to be the only Porter on this Roster. On February 26, 1963, Petitioner's General Chairman requested that Broady's name be removed from Roster No. 4 on the grounds that, effective November 8, 1962, this individual had accepted assignment as a shop laborer, a position falling within the purview of an Agreement between Carrier and International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Roundhouse and Shop Laborers.
Insofar as the evidence discussed on the property reveals, Broady did not refuse to accept work as Extra Porter subsequent to acquiring seniority status in that position in July 1962. Nor did any other employe claim that he had been harmed as 'a result of Broady's retention on Roster No. 4. Later, in its Ex Parts Submission, Petitioner alleged that Rule 23 (which provides that "employes filing application for positions or vacancies on other districts or rosters will be given consideration in the filling o8 same") was abridged since deserving employes on other districts were deliberately by-passed. However, no employes were named and no specifics were presented. Petitioner did state, in its Ex Parts Submission, that Broady was used to relieve Jagoe during the latter's June 3-21, 1963 vacation, and alleged this to be a contract violation. But a separate claim on behalf of a furloughed storehouse laborer was submitted and this action, consequently, is not to be considered' in the case at hand.
In its Rebuttal Submission, Petitioner further alleged that, when it has become necessary to use an extra porter, Carrier has blanked or abolished Broady's laborer position and then reestablished it when the porter vacancy terminated. It also charged that men with over fifteen years of service were furloughed while Porter vacancies were being assigned to Broady. But neither of these allegations were made or discussed on the property and, consequently, cannot be considered here.
This case, then, is to be decided simply on these facts. (1) Broady properly acquired Roster No. 4 seniority as an Extra Porter in July 1962; (2) subsequent to July 1962 he did not decline to fill Extra Porter assignments; (3) there is no evidence that he deprived other employes with superior rights of Extra Porter work. Based on these facts (which are distinguishable from