THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
Exhibit E-Letter dated January 23, 1962' from General Chairman
P. A. Dwyer to Manager-Labor Relations Henry Miller, Jr.
The wages and working conditions of the employes involved in this dispute are covered by Schedule Agreement between the parties effective January 1, 1950, copies of which are on file with this Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
OPINION OF BOARD: Mrs. Elizabeth Boyd, Clerk in the Mid-way Information Booth, took her vacation between October 4 and October 15, 1961. During her absence, her tour of duty was filled by employes drawn from the pool of Reservation-Information Clerks stationed inside the ticket office enclosure about seventy-five feet from the Mid-way Information Booth during a portion of their assigned hours of their own position.
Claimants contend that the method used in filling Mrs. Boyd's position while on vacation is a violation of Article 10(b) of the National Vacation Agreement. They maintain they were the senior available employes and should have been called to fill the vacancy. They also point out that Carrier made no advance arrangements to provide vacation relief for Mrs. Boyd's position nor did it consult with the Local Chairman concerning the filling of the vacancy as provided in Rule 10. Moreover, they take the position that failure to fill Information-Reservation positions increased the work burden of the other Information-Reservation Clerks in the ticket office.
In declining the claims, Carrier explained that Mrs. Boyd's vacancy was offered to a number of employes who refused it because of the hours of assignment and since all furloughed and extra employes were working at the time covering vacations and sick leaves, it was necessary to fill her position with Reservation-Information employes who were willing to accept the assignment and could readily be spared from the pool. Furthermore, Carrier points out that Mrs. Boyd was granted her vacation at this time because of personal urgency. Although it offers these explanations Carrier contends that the Board has no authority to consider the claims on their merits becanse the Petition is defective procedurally.
The record reveals that the claim handled on the property concerned the "method of filling Mrs. Boyd's job while she was on vacation." The claim was based on the premise that the Claimants who were senior employes were available to fill Mrs. Boyd's vacancy but were not called to do so. However,
the basis for alleged violation as expressed in the Statement of Claim of this dispute is the failure "to fill the positions of Information-Reservation Clerks in the ticket office department on the dates on which they were relieving Mrs. Elizabeth Boyd while she was on vacation."
Hence, although the Claimants and dates involved are the same, the instant claim differs from the claim on the property, the latter concerns the filling of the vacation vacancy of Mrs. Boyd whereas the claim under consideration involves the filling of positions of Information-Reservation Clerks.
Since the claim was not handled "in the usual manner," as provided for in Section 3, First (i) of the Railway Labor Act, we hold that the Board has no jurisdiction over the dispute and the claim is dismissed.
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 does not have jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and