PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

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



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-5872) that:














EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On the above claim dates the regularly assigned occupant of position of Transfer Clerk No. 1106 (Group 1) was absent due to illness. Because the Extra Board was exhausted, Mr. Sanchez was used to fill this vacancy, instead of calling a regularly assigned Group 1 employe on overtime basis. Mr. Pablo Sanchez was a furloughed Group 3 employe, and had never worked or established seniority in Group 1.


On September 2, 1964, Division Chairman J. H. Lucas, Jr. filed claim as result of Carrier using Mr. Sanchez to fill the temporary vacancy on Transfer Clerk No. 1106 position. (Employes' Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2.)



(Employes' Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4.)


Carrier official to receive such claims. (Employes' Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, 7,
8 and 9.)






13. Claim was progressed in the proper manner on the property and is properly before the Board.


OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier used a furloughed Group 3 employe to fill a temporary vacancy in Group 1 position of Transfer Clerk No. 1106, caused by the absence of the regularly assigned incumbent, when there were no extra or furloughed employes available with seniority in Group 1. Petitioner contends that Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties by assigning the furloughed Group 3 employe to a Group 1 position on a temporary basis because he held no seniority in Group 1 and that the Agreement reserves all Group 1 work to Group 1 employes. The instant claim is in behalf of regularly assigned Group 1 employes, who, Petitioner maintains, should have been assigned to the temporary vacancy on an overtime basis.


Carrier contends that the furloughed Group 3 employe was promoted under Rule 7 (d) of the Agreement to perform the disputed assignment at the straight time rate, and that the claim represents an attempt to deny Carrier the right to promote employes to fill temporary vacancies caused by the absence of regularly assigned employes when there are no extra or furloughed employes available under Rule 25 of the Agreement between the parties.











15463 4















The record discloses that over the years, 60 employes in Group 2 have been promoted to Group 1, 4 employes from Group 3 to Group 1, and 3 employes to Group 2 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 (d). In fact, both Claimants previously held positions in Group 2 and were promoted to positions in Group 1. It also should be noted that a primary purpose for defining various classifications of clerical employes in Rule 1 (a) is to identify the higher skilled employes for pay purposes and to preserve to the group the higher rated positions. However, it does not limit them to the performance of particular clerical work. Award 7167. Ordinarily, employes on one seniority roster should not be used to perform the work of positions on another seniority roster. However, when a temporary vacancy exists that


15463 5

cannot be filled from the roster of a particular Group under Rule 1 (a) of the Agreement, and there are no extra unassigned or furloughed employes available with seniority in that group, the promotion of a furloughed employe in another group under Rule 1 (a) to fill the temporary vacancy is ,proper. Awards 6266, 7167, 9047. This Board has held on numerous occasions that a Carrier is not bound to pay the punitive rate for work performed if it can be accomplished at the straight time rate, within the framework of the collective bargaining agreement. (Award 7227.)


We have carefully considered the earlier Awards relied on by Petitioner in support of the instant claim and feel the factual situations are readily distinguishable. The instant disputes involves the promotion of a furloughed employe with established seniority in Group 3 to a temporary vacancy in a Group 1 position in the absence of an extra or furloughed employe with seniority in Group 1. No new hiring is involved in this case.




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









Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of April 1967.

Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
15463 6