THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
(Formerly The Order of Railroad Telegraphers)
Under date of August 12 and 13, 1961, Claimant submitted time claims for said dates to the Assistant Supervising Operator, requesting payment of eight punitive hours for each date. The claims were denied by the Assistant Supervising Operator under date of August 23, 1961.
On October 25, 1961, the District Chairman, Order of Railroad Telegraphers, submitted a claim, identical to that quoted at the beginning of this Submission, to the Superintendent, Personnel, Buckeye Region. The Superintendent, Personnel denied the claim by letter of December 23, 1961. Subsequently, at the request of the District Chairman, a Joint Submission covering the matter was prepared, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A.
At a meeting on September 6, 1962, the General Chairman presented the claim to the Manager, Labor Relations, the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes on the property. The Manager, Labor Relations denied the claim by letter of September 28, 1962. This matter was the subject of further correspondence between the General Chairman and the Manager, Labor Relations, and by letters dated March 14 and May 20, 1963, the latter reaffirmed his denial of September 28, 1962. The Manager's letters of September 28, 1962, March 14 and May 20, 1963, are attached as Exhibit B-1, B-2, and B-3.
Therefore, so far as Carrier is able to anticipate the basis of this claim, the questions to be decided by your Honorable Board are whether Claimant had a demand right to be used, under any provisions of the Rules Agreement or of any other agreements or understandings between the parties, to work the third trick operator position at West Manchester Block Station on August 12 and 13, 1961, and whether Claimant is entitled to the compensation claimed.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant in this case is a regular 3rd trick, 5 tower, relief block operator on the former Columbus Division seniority district. His schedule is as follows:
The Claimant's home is in Richmond, Indiana and headquarters for gasoline mileage is Newman tower. On Saturday and Sunday, August 12 and 13, 1961, an extra operator was used on his 6th and 7th days of that week to work the 3rd trick at West Manchester. The vacancies on these dates were the result of the regular 3rd trick and regular relief man being on vacation. Claimant contends that he should have been used on his rest days in preference to the extra man, citing Regulation 5-G-1 (i) and the Memorandum of Understanding of January 30, 1961 as his authority.
The Memorandum of Understanding, dated January 30, 1961, provides for assignment of work on an overtime basis as follows:
It is the contention of the Petitioner that Claimant comes within the purview of Item (2) in paragraph A and Item (1) in paragraph B, and that the employe used comes under Item (3) in paragraph A and Item (2) in paragraph B. Hence, Claimant was entitled to work on both dates.
The Carrier contends that the Claimant can only be used on an overtime basis at Newman Tower, and that he is not regularly assigned at West Manchester by virtue of working at that location one day per week.
We conclude that in accord with the Memorandum of Understanding of January 30, 1961, there were no extra Group 2 employes available who had less than 40 hours' work in the work week, that it was known for more than 4 hours in advance that each vacancy would occur, and that the use of the Claimant would not have resulted in a violation of the Hours of Service Law.
At West Manchester, on August 12, 1961, there was a vacancy, the third shift scheduled to be worked by White as the regularly assigned relief employe arising because of the absence of the regular relief employe, i.e., White. There was no extra employe available with less than 40 hours in his work week; hence, the assignment became one which involved filling on an overtime basis. Under A (1) of the aforecited Memorandum, the regular incumbent of the position observing his rest day would have had the first claim to the work. But, he was absent also; hence, the next employe entitled to the work as defined in paragraph A (2)
was the Claimant. He was available, regularly assigned at the location and eligible. He should have been called.
August 13, 1961 was a scheduled work day of Morris on the 3rd shift at West Manchester, a position to which he was regularly assigned. He was absent; hence, there was a vacancy "arising by reason of absence of a regular employe on other than rest day." There was no extra employe available with less than 40 hours in his work week; consequently, the assignment had to be filled on an overtime basis. Under B (1) the position was subject to being filled by the:
The Claimant was just such an employe and should have been called. The Claim will be sustained.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds, and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employee 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