TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
As a matter of further information, three yard engine assignments are operated in Lansing Yard under the supervision of a Yardmaster. Lansing is a train order office with a tower manned by Operator-Levermen who report to the Chief Dispatcher of the Chicago Division at Battle Creek on all train order matters. There is also a tower manned by Levermen under the jurisdiction of the Signal Department. The Car and Locomotive Foreman at Lansing has jurisdiction over the Roundhouse and Car Repair Department at that point. The Chief Clerk and Warehouse Foreman are section heads, and as such do not require the close supervision of the Agent as to the performance of their duties. Upon occasion in the Agent's duties require him to be absent from his office or even absent from the city, and the agency is so organized that it can function in the Agent's absence for all ordinary purposes. Existing regulations permit the Chief Clerk to sign necessary papers in the Agent's name. Matters that must be handled personally by the Agent can be and are deferred until his return to the office.
In a large office like Lansing, manned by a specialized staff, even the average Relief Agent is of little use. The three claimants are not Relief Agents and none of them has the experience that would qualify him to supervise the Lansing staff.
OPINION OF BOARD: Mr. C. E. Collins, the regularly assigned Agent at Lansing, Michigan, reported ill on June 10, 1958, and performed no service after that date. On June 20, 1958, Carrier issued a bulletin advertising the position which was filled on July 14, 1958.
The Brotherhood contends that Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to assign a Relief Agent to the position between June 10 and July 11, 1958. It maintains that instead of filling the position with an employe holding seniority rights under the Telegraphers' Agreement, it assigned the work to the Chief Clerk, an employe of another craft and class, in violation of the Scope Rule. It points out that the employes on whose behalf the claim is filed were qualified and available to perform the work.
In its denial Carrier points out that the period between June 10 to June 30 constituted an absence due to vacation and hence was not a vacancy under the Rules. The permanent vacancy that began on July 1 was advertised and properly filled under Rule 3. No relief was furnished during the absence of the Agent because there was no operational need for such relief. Moreover, no employe of another craft performed the duties belonging exclusively to the Agent and his craft.
We cannot assume that in the absence of the Agent other employes were assigned to perform his work. The Agent's responsibilities include the supervision of the staff in the performance of office, warehouse, and yard operations, as well as service as local representative of the Railroad in its relations with the general public . Some of his duties belong to him exclusively and others which are not supervisory are duties also performed by members of the staff not subject to the Telegraphers' Agreement. At times when the Agent's duties required him to be absent from his office, the agency staff performing its own work carried on ordinary business transactions without him. In the instant case the Brotherhood fails to furnish probative evidence to support its allegation that clerical employes not covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement performed work belonging to the Agent.
The period between June 10th and June 30th was a vacation absence which Carrier gave Mr. Collins before his resignation. Section 6 of the Vacation Agreement outlines the conditions under which Carrier must provide a relief worker. Brotherhood has not shown that a relief employe was needed, that failure to assign one was a burden to other employes, or that members of another class or craft performed the work. Thus Carrier properly exercised its managerial prerogative in blanking the position. Furthermore in compliance with Rule 3 of the 'Telegraphers' Agreement Carrier properly filled the position within 30 days after the vacancy occurred. During the vacancy from June 30th to July 11th there is also no showing that Carrier assigned the work to employes not subject to the Telegraphers' Agreement.
Since Brotherhood has not demonstrated that work belonging exclusively to the Agent was performed by employes outside of the Telegraphers' Agreement, when Carrier failed to assign a Relief Agent at Lansing, Michigan, we find the Agreement was not violated.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and 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