NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
John H. Dorsey, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN
NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC BELT RAILROAD
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the General Committee of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad
that:
(a) Carrier violated the current Signalmen's Agreement, as
amended, particularly the Scope and Rules 101, 103, 104, 108, 505, 905,
911 and 913, when it required and/or permitted an employe not covered
by that agreement to assist Testman-Foreman Ned Dufrene in making
signal tests for ten (10) hours each day April 18 and 19, 1964, and
for eight (8) hours each day April 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28, 1964.
(b) Carrier be required to compensate Mr. Dufrene at his overtime rate of pay for the amount of time listed above.
(c) Carrier also be required to compensate Mr. Dufrene at his
overtime rate of pay for any and all actual time worked subsequent to
the above dates by other than signal employes in the performance of
signal work in violation of the Signalmen's Agreement.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The parties to this dispute
entered into an agreement governing hours of service, working conditions and
rates of pay, effective January 16, 1963. By reference thereto, that agreement
is made a part of the record herein.
While the agreement includes five classifications (Testman-Foreman, Leading Signal Maintainer, Signal Maintainer, Assistant, and Signal Helper), it
was understood (Agreement Rule 108) that Carrier (total trackage 172 miles)
would employ only two classes of signal employes, Testman-Foreman and
Assistant, as of the effective date of the agreement.
Under date of January 15, 1963, it was agreed that instead of bulletining
positions, Mr. Ned J. Dufrene would be assigned as Testman-Foreman at the
rate of $3.16 per hour, and Mr. Merlin J. Klotz would be assigned as Assistant
at the rate of $2.63 per hour, both assignments effective as of January
16, 1963.
Baguette, account emotional strain. On June 9, 1964, Mr. E. L. Mire, Assistant
General Manager, wrote Mr. Dufrene instructing him to report promptly to
Carrier's Physician, Dr. M. C. Greenleaf, in order that he could advise us of
Mr. Dufrene's physical condition and probable length of time he would be
off sick. In lieu of reporting to the company physician Mr. Dufrene elected to
submit his resignation.
The Organization further alleges that Carrier violated Rule 505 of the
agreement when it failed to bulletin the vacancy
created by the resignation of
Assistant Maintainer M. J. Klotz on October 10, 1963. Rule 505 of the agreement reads as follows:
"Rule 505. New positions or vacancies except in the helper class
shall be bulletined within fifteen calendar days prior to or five calendar days following the date such positions are created or vacancies
occur.
Assignments will be made after bulletin notice has been posted
for a period of five calendar days and a copy issued to the General
Chairman, during which time the employes may file their applications
with the official whose name appears on the bulletin. The appointment will be made and the name of the successful applicant announced
within a period of five calendar days from the posting of the bulletin.
Transfer of successful applicants to new assignments will be made
within five calendar days after close of assignment bulletin."
No exception was taken to Carrier not bulletining this assignment, which
was vacated on October 10, 1963, until May 5, 1964, the date of the initial
claim.
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
Paragraph (h) of the Scope Rule provides:
. . . No employes, other than those coming within the scope of
this` agreement will be required or permitted to perform any of the
above work, except such labor as is required and requested by Signal
Employes for short periods of time to assist employes in the Signal
Department."
In the case before us Carrier assigned an employe not covered by the
Agreement to assist a covered employe for eight days. The labor was
required
and assistance was requested by the signal employe. The issue is whether eight
days was a short period within the contemplation of the exception prescribed
in paragraph (h) of the Scope Rule.
The record contains no evidence from which we can resolve the issue. We,
consequently, must dismiss the Claim for lack of proof.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole
record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
15542 4
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
That the Claim must be dismissed for lack of proof.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 5th day of May 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
15542 6