NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)

Paul C. Dugan, Referee

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY

STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5514) that:

1. Carrier violated the Clerks' Rules Agreement at Savanna, Illinois when it arbitrarily removed the occupant of Relief Position No. 18 from his assignment on Position No. 2694 on Sunday, March 31, 1963 and assigned him to the duties of Position No. 2685.

2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate employe P. A. Spinoso for eight (8) hours at the overtime rate of Yard Clerk Position No. 2685 for March 31, 1963.

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The following positions, among others, were in effect at the Savanna, Illinois Yard Office on March 31, 1963:

(d) The provisions of this rule do not apply to employes performing work of an employe absent by reason of sickness when sick leave payment is allowed and when none of the regular assignments in the office, in which is located the assignment of the employe absent account of sickness, is blanked by the Carrier." (Emphasis curs.)

On Sunday, March 31, 1963, employe G. Michelson was temporarily assigned by proper authority to temporarily vacant Relief Position No. 17 (Yard Clerk Position No. 2685), the assigned hours, duties and rate of which are, on Sundays, the same as employe Michelson's regularly assigned Relief Position No. 18 (Yard Clerk Position No. 2694), for a period of 2'iz hours during which time employe Michelson handled waybills in connection with the make-up of Trains 62 and 72, inclusive of keypunching on an IBM machine the necessary IBM cards to accompany the waybills.

In other words, on Sunday, March 31, 1963, employe Michelson performed 5'/z hours service on his regularly assigned Relief Position No. 18 (Yard Clerk Position No. 2694), during which time he performed all of the necessary duties thereof, and as a result of being temporarily assigned by proper authority to temporarily vacant Relief Position No. 17 (Yard Clerk Position No. 2685) he performed 21/z hours service thereon which constituted the only service necessary to be performed on Relief Position No. 17 (Yard Clerk Position No. 2685) on Sunday, March 31.

There is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit "A" copy of letter written by Mr. S. W. Amour, Assistant to Vice President, to Mr. H. V. Gilligan, General Chairman, under date of August 14, 1963.

(Exhibits not reproduced.)

OPINION OF BOARD: The controlling issue involved herein is whether or not the Carrier suspended the work of an Employe in order to absorbe overtime in violation of Rule 32(h) of the agreement between the parties hereto.

The facts were that Claimant Spinoso held regularly assigned Position 2685 as Yard Clerk with rest days Saturday and Sunday. There were no furloughed employes available to fill said Position 2685 on Sunday, March :31, 1963. The Carrier assigned on this date Yard Clerk Employe Michelson to perform, in addition to his regularly assigned duties of Position 2694, part of the duties of Position 2685, the exact hours performed by said Employe Michelson being in dispute.

The Organization contends that the work of Position No. 2694 was suspended on said day in order to transfer Employe Michelson for the purpose of avoiding the payment of overtime in violation of Rule 32(f) and (h) of the agreement between the parties hereto and Section 4 of Memorandum of Agreement 9.

The Carrier's position is that (a) there was no suspension of Employe Michelson's work; (b) .the use of Employe Michelson in working Position 2685 did not have the effect of absorbing overtime; (c) the Carrier has the right to spread the work of an employe among other employes; (d) Rule 32 (f) or Section 4 of Agreement 9 is not applicable because no overtime was required on the day in question.

"However, even if only the Carrier's position on the property in this regard is accepted, the Board feels that the evidence does not support a finding that Gromacki was physically removed from his Relief Position No. 2 to fill Position No. 559-that is, he was not required to suspend work, in violation of Rule 32(h). At most, he worked only a part of the tour of the latter position, while performing his normal duties including yard clerk work as well as auto messenger service, as bulletined for his position. This is distinguishable from the situation encountered in Awards 9582 and 9583, wherein the Board sustained the claim of an employe regularly assigned to a rest-day relief position who was instructed to vacate yard clerk work and fill office boy work, which consumed his full eight hours."

"Therefore, since we cannot conclude that the Claimant as Recheck Clerk would have performed the work in question on an overtime basis, we cannot find that the instant claim should be allowed."

In view of the above cited awards, we must deny this Claim.

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Agreement was not violated.

AWARD