TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYES UNION
(FORMERLY THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS)
It will be noted that the General Chairman did not name any claimants in connection with several of the dates involved.
The claims in behalf of telegraphers R. D. Bathke, S. M. Stolts, R. A. King, and R. L. Pluntz for various dates listed above, from November 23, 1958 through January 3, 1959, and the claims in behalf of telegrapher C. J. Frieburg for December 13, 1958 and January 23, 1959, were not submitted to the carrier until the General Chairman submitted their claims in his letter of March 10, 1959 to the Director of Personnel. This was more than 60 days after the dates involved in the claims of these claimants, except for the claim in behalf of telegrapher C. J. Frieburg for January 23, 1969. Furthermore, none of these claims first submitted in the General Chairman's letter of March 10, 1959 to the Director of Personnel were ever submitted and handled locally with the Superintendent as required by Article V of the non-ops agreement of August 21, 1954 (page 96 of schedule agreement). Claims involving these dates were presented and handled locally, but not on behalf of the claimants named in the General Chairman's letter of March 10, 1959 to the Director of Personnel. The claims were handled locally on behalf of unnamed employes.
The claim in behalf of telegrapher C. J. Frieburg for January 31, 1959 was not submitted until the General Chairman submitted this claim in his behalf in his letter of April 2, 1959 to the Director of Personnel. This was more than sixty days after the date of claim. Furthermore, claim in behalf of telegrapher C. J. Frieburg for January 31, 1969 was never presented and handled locally with the Superintendent as required by Article V of the non-ops agreement of 1954. A claim was handled locally ionvolving this date on behalf of an unnamed employe, but no claim on behalf of telegrapher C. J. Frieburg for this date was submitted until the General Chairman's letter of April 2, 1959 to the Director of Personnel.
Claims in behalf of telegrapher J. E. Goodwin for March 8, 1959 and in behalf of telegrapher R. J. McLeod for March 15, 1959 were submitted in the General Chairman's letter of April 2, 1959 to the Superintendent and were properly handled locally. However, in appealing the claims involving the dates of March 8 and 15, 1959, to the Director of Personnel, the General Chairman omitted the names of any claimants, and stated that claims were being subnvtted in behalf of "the senior idle employe, extra in preference."
In handling these claims on the property, the General Chairman also demanded the right to examine the carrier's records to identify the employes on whose behalf the claims should have been submitted. However, the "Statement of Claim" indicates that the organization has now abandoned this demand, which was not supported by any agreement between the carrier and The Order of Railroad Telegraphers.
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute concerns the handling of train orders by train service employes at stations where the positions of telegraphers had been abolished. Claiming a violation of Appendix H of the Telegraphers' Agreement, the Brotherhood contends that the senior idle employe, extra in preference, is entitled to a day's pay for ach day train orders were handled by employes other than those covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement at the location stated.
ductors or brakemen at closed stations, it contends that the claim does not comply with the requirements of Article V, Section 1 (a) of the National Agreement of August 21, 1954, and should be dismissed. It states that when the claim was first submitted, Claimants were not named and that later, when the Brotherhood attempted to rectify this omission, it failed to name Claimants in connection with four of the dates involved, December 6, 1958, January 23, 1959, March 8, 1959 and March 15, 1959. Moreover, Carrier contends that since the claim in behalf of Telegrapher C. J. Frieburg for January 23, 1959 was not submitted within the 60 day time limit rule, it should be barred. Carrier also urges that there is no basis for compensation because Claimants were not idle and did not suffer damage as a result of Carrier's action.
With reference to the question of whether the claim satisfies provisions of Article V, Section 1 (a) which requires that Claimants be named, we find that the claim is sufficiently clear so that Petitioners can be identified. Although the Brotherhood did submit some of the names, we do not interpret the omission of four names to mean that these employes cannot be recognized. The specific name is not essential for identification of Claimant under Article V, Section 1 (a). Numerous awards sustain this position including Awards 11662, 11919, 12148 and 12388 rendered by this Referee.
The allegation that the claim in behalf of C. J. Frieburg was not filed within the 60 day time limit rule is not supported by the record. Mr. Frieburg's name may have been submitted after the 60 day limit, but his claim was filed within the proper time limit designated by Article V.
For the reasons stated, this dispute is properly before the Board. Since Appendix H of the Telegraphers' Agreement was violated, we hold that the senior idle employe, extra in preference, is entitled to a day's pay on the dates enumerated.
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
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty Executive Secretary Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of April, 1966.