NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Don Harr, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
(Texas and Louisiana Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood that:
(1) The Carrier violated the Agreement when it used an employe junior to Assistant Foreman C. C. Hensley to perform work as
a relief foreman on Extra Gangs 419, 428 and 427 beginning June
7, 1965. (System claim MW-65-42.)
(2) Assistant Foreman C. C. Hensley now be allowed the difference between the rate of pay for Foreman on Extra Gangs 419, 428
and 427 and what he received at the Assistant Foreman's rate for
all time consumed by the junior employe in performing the service
referred to in Part (1) of this claim.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF
FACTS: The claimant has established
and holds seniority rights as a track foreman on the Carrier's DallasAustin Division as of September 30, 1964. However, during the period involved in this dispute lie was employed as a regularly assigned assistant
track foreman on Extra Gang No. 423, with headquarters at Hearne,
Texas.
The claimant received a letter dated March 29, 1965, which Division
Engineer E. L. Woods addressed to all assistant track foremen on the Dalla:sAustin Division, the pertinent portion of which reads:
"Will you please advise if you desire to do any relief work,
exercising your seniority rights under Article VIII, Rule 6 of the
MofW Agreement, working assignments for foremen off account
vacation, sickness or for other reasons. If you will be available for
these temporary assignments, kindly furnish me your U. S. mailing
address and telephone number. If you do not desire to do relief work,
send me a letter stating that you do not wish to work temporary
vacancies."
On April 3, 1965, the claimant advised the Carrier that he was available
to perform relief work.
"Houston, Texas
February 17, 1966
Mr. J. D. Davis, Manager of Personnel
Southern Pacific Company, T&L Lines
Houston, Texas 77001
Postmarked February 17, 1966.
Dear Sir:
With further reference to your letter of September 13, 1965,
File MW-65-42, claim of Assistant Track Foreman Mr. C. C. Hensley,
claiming the difference between the rate of pay he received as
assistant foreman and the rate of pay applicable to the foreman's
position beginning June 7, 1965, and to continue for the duration of
the relief work on Extra Gangs Nos. 419, 428 and 427, and our conferences September 19, 1965, October 27, 1965 and January 28, 1966.
In our conference of January 28, 1966, I advised you it was
obvious that we would not be able to satisfactorily dispose of this
claim on the property and it was understood that we would present
File MW-65-42 to the Third Division of the Railroad Adjustment
Board for final disposition and I am this date, February 17, 1966,
forwarding this file to our representative in Chicago for his handling before the Third Division.
Yours very truly,
/s/ M. Burrough
M. Burrough
General Chairman
MB/ma"
OPINION OF BOARD:
On March 29, 1965, a letter was addressed to
assistant track foreman requesting that they advise the Carrier if they desired
to do relief work.
This letter read in part:
"Will you please advise if you desire to do any relief work,
exercising your seniority rights under Article VIII, Rule 6 of the
MofW Agreement, working assignments for foremen off account
vacation, sickness or for other reasons. If you will be available
for these temporary assignments, kindly furnish me your U. S.
Mailing address and telephone number. If you do not desire to do
relief work, send me a letter stating that you do not wish to work
temporary vacancies."
Claimant replied on April 3, 1965, that he was available for temporary
assignments. When Claimant was offered an opportunity to do relief work he
refused the work unless he was allowed expenses. Subsequently Carrier
assigned an employe junior to Claimant to perform the work in question.
The Employes progressed this claim alleging a violation of the effective
agreement and the Vacation Agreement, dated December 17, 1941.
After a careful review of the Agreement we can find no violation by
Carrier. The Carrier properly filled the temporary vacancies under Article
15579 9
VIII, Rule 6 of the Agreement. Carrier properly offered the temporary work
to Claimant and he refused, they then gave the work to the employe next
in line by seniority.
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;
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 Agreement was not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 19th day of May 1967.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
15579 10