THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
"SUPERVISORY
OR OFFICIAL POSITIONS
5, 1958, days on which he was employed as a Dispatcher. The basis of this claim is that Thursday and Friday were Grabowski's rest days when he was employed as a Towerman, and that therefore he should be paid at the time and one-half rate even when not so employed, but when working in any capacity on said days. The claim also makes a specific demand regarding pay for Monday, September 1, 1958 and Tuesday, September 2, 1958. Herein it is demanded that the claimant receive a day's pay (8 hours), for each of these days, on the ground that he was suspended from working in his regular capacity as a Towerman. These latter days were, as is stated above, Grabowski's rest days on his tour as a Dispatcher, and were a part of the tour of duty which had been assumed by him.
By a letter dated October 13, 1958, Towerman Grabowski submitted a time claim based upon the situation detailed above. Carrier, by letter dated November 10, 1958, rejected Towerman Grabowski's claim on the ground that on the days in question his service was governed by the applicable agreement with the ATDA. The General Chairman of the ORT', by letter dated November 13, 1958 appealed the issue to Carrier's General Superintendent the General Superintendent denied the claim by letter dated January 20, 1959.
The issue presently before the Board is whether a Towerman who has elected to be employed as an Acting Train Dispatcher is governed by Carrier's agreement with the ATDA, or is still governed pursuant to Carrier's agreement with the ORT. It has been the Carrier's position that it is not subject to the national time claim rule with ORT. The Organization has recently argued that the national rule, including the provision for continuing claims, is applicable. In any event the claim is not of a true continuing nature because the circumstances are not such that the dates involved are continually recurring.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant held a regular assignment under Telegraphers' Agreement and had qualified under that Agreement for assignment as acting train dispatcher. He was assigned to work as a train dispatcher for a week. The rest days of his train dispatcher position were regular work days of his T'elegrapher's position. He was not permitted to work those days on his Telegrapher's position, and he was paid only straight time for work as a train dispatcher on the rest days of his Telegrapher's position.
Except for the fact that Claimant's position under Telegraphers' Agreement was in this case not bulletined, the facts here are basically the same as those we dealt with in Award 13009 (Referee West) between the same parties. That award cites with approval the reasoning expressed in Awards 3674 and 6561 and says:
The fact that Claimant's position under Telegraphers' Agreement was not bulletined in this case is not a reason for us to depart from the conclusion
expressed in the first sentence quoted above: From the time Claimant began to fill the dispatcher's position until he terminated his tour of duty on that position, he came under the Dispatchers' Agreement, and during that time he could demand no rights under the Telegraphers' Agreement; Claimant's filling of the dispatcher position, not a bulletining of his Telegrapher position initiated the suspension of his demand rights under the Telegraphers' Agreement.
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