TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
The Carrier illegally established a relief position in violation of the applicable agreement, effective February 8, 1958, comprehending the following schedule:
The above relief schedule comprehends work on two (2) separate seniority districts, the Columbus and Eastern seniority districts; Harvey and Troyton being on the Columbus and Stack, Carrothers and Tiffin on the Eastern seniority district. The establishment of this relief position is in violation of Regulation 1-B-1 (a) and 2-M-1 (a) of the applicable agreement. Because of this violation Mr. B. Noe, extra employe on the Columbus seniority district, submitted time card claiming eight (8) hours' pay at the straight time rate for February 19, 1958, being available and not called to perform work at Troyton 3:00 P. M. until 11:00 P. M., further in accordance with Regulation 4-T-1 and Article five (5) of the August 21, 1954 agreement, claim is hereby made on behalf of available extra employe for each succeeding Tuesday and Wednesday this relief position is worked from another seniority district. The aggrieved employes are:
EMPLOYES COVERED BY REGULATIONS FOR
THE GOVERNMENT OF BLOCK OPERATORS,
TELEGRAPHERS, ETC.
BIDS WILL BE RECEIVED BY OFFICER NAMED BELOW
UP TO AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 8, 1958
The Superintendent-Personnel also advised that the claim had been denied by the Buckeye Region merely to comply with the time-limit provisions for handling disputes.
In a letter dated September 8, 1958, the Local Chairman, Columbus District, listed a claim for discussion with the Superintendent-Personnel, Buckeye Region. Claim was essentially the same as that appearing in Employes' Statement of Claim, except that the names of Messrs. Shroll and Ream were not included. Following discussion of September 26, 1958, claim was denied by letter dated October 27, 1958, to the Local Chairman, Columbus District, by the Superintendent-Personnel, Lake Region.
In a letter dated November 3, 1958, the Local Chairman rejected the decision of the Superintendent-Personnel, Lake Region, and requested that a Joint Submission be prepared. A copy of the completed Joint Submission dated November 2, 1959, is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit A.
The matter was then discussed by the Manager-Labor Relations and General Chairman at meeting on December 18, 1959. In letter dated January 11, 1960, the Manager-Labor Relations denied the claim on the basis that Mr. Rotruck had prior right to the vacancy over the Claimants; that, in any event, the claim is not valid because it had not been handled in accordance with Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement.
Therefore, so far as the Carrier is able to anticipate the arguments of the Organization, the questions to be decided by your Honorable Board are (1) whether the handling of this matter on the property has been timely as required in Article V of the Agreement dated August 21, 1954; and (2) whether the establishment of the Relief Operator position violated Regulation 1-B-1 (a) and 2-M-1 (a) of the Agreement, and whether Claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Carrier has raised several procedural and jurisdictional issues, all of which are found to be without foundation and are, therefore, rejected. The claim is properly before the Division and should be decided on the merits.
It is an undisputed fact, as disclosed in the record, that the Carrier established a regular relief position which required the assigned employe to perform relief work in two distinct seniority districts. This position was so advertised by bulletin.
Petitioner argues that the Agreement does not permit the establishment of a position where work is to be performed in two separate seniority districts, and cites Rules 1-B-1(a), 2-M-1(a) and 5-G-1(f) in particular. The pertinent parts of these rules read:
Carrier, on the other hand, argues "that as long as Block Operator R. Rotruck and other Block Operators, who hired in the former Toledo Division territory, continue in the employ of the Carrier, the Toledo Division territory as constituted on October 31, 1950, shall properly be considered a seniority district for such employes." Under these circumstances, the newly established relief position was entirely within the existing seniority district of the former Toledo Division. "This is true," says the Carrier, "regardless of the fact that said relief position coincidentally included block stations on portions of the Columbus and Eastern seniority districts as they existed on and after November 1, 1950."
Effective November 1, 1950, the Toledo Division was abolished. One portion became part of the Eastern Division, and another portion became part of the Columbus Division. The relief position here involved required the assigned employe to perform work in both Divisions. Each Division is a separate seniority district. No Toledo Division existed when this relief position was established on January 29, 1958.
Rule 1-B-1(a) is clear and meaningful. It is not ambiguous. Carrier is obliged to advertise permanent new positions on one Division or on one seniority district. There is no authority to advertise a single new position on two or more Divisions or on two or more seniority districts. Bulletin No. I clearly shows that the work of the new relief position was to be performed at locations in the Eastern Division and at locations in the Columbus Division, each of which is a separate seniority district. The mere fact that R. Rotruck held prior right seniority on the former Toledo Division does not give Carrier the right to advertise the position in the two Divisions or in the two seniority districts.
Similarly, Rule 5-G-1(f) limits assignments for regular relief positions to work locations in the same seniority district as the employes relieved. The work locations in the advertised new relief position were in two seniority districts, and the employes relieved held seniority in separate and distinct seniority districts.
Past practice may be considered only when the contract language is ambiguous and it is necessary to ascertain the meaning and intent of the parties. We have already said that Rule 1-B-1(a) is not so ambiguous. Therefore, the fact that a similar single situation occurred in 1952 and no complaint was filed by Petitioner has no bearing in this case.
It is admitted that Claimant, D. M. Shroll, had more seniority on the Columbus Division and more prior seniority rights in the former Toledo