THIRD DIVISION

(Supplemental)




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 that:






EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute is between the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes as the representative of the class or craft of employes in which the claimant in this case holds position and the Southern Railway Company.


On January 31, 1964, Mrs. Frances S. Bowen had been an employe of the Southern Railway Company for a period of over twelve (12) years. During this period of time she had nine (9) years of rate and division experience.


Chairman, Protective Committee, Mr. E. E. Yancey, filed claim on January 31, 1964 (Employes' Exhibit A).


This claim was declined by Director, Revenue Accounting Mr. J. T. Bolling on March 18, 1964 (Employee' Exhibit B).


Appeal was made to Mr. G. H. Keller, Assistant Comptroller, by Chairman, Protective Committee, Mr. E. E. Yancey, his appeal of March 24, 1964 (Employes' Exhibit C).




















"RULE 17. TEMPORARY VACANCIES

(Revised, effective October 1, 1938)




OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant in this case contends that the Carrier violated the agreement rules by filling two temporary vacancies as Rate Clerk with an individual junior to her. Claimant's seniority date was 1951, whereas the employe designated by the Carrier to fill the temporary vacancies has a seniority date of 1963. The number of days involved in the instant claim is 34 work days in January and April. 1964. The position became vacant on these days because of the illness of the regular incumbent. Precisely stated, the issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the Carrier must observe seniority when filling temporary vacancies.


Rule 17 of the Agreement, entitled "Temporary Vacancies (Revised, effective October 1, 1938), reads as follows:


15627 5



The first paragraph is quite clear in that it gives Carrier the option to fill or blank temporary vacancies. The proper interpretation of the second paragraph is at issue in resolving this claim. Carrier contends that an em. ploye is only required to have seniority and need not be the senior qualified employe as the Petitioner alleges.


Rule 17 is distinguishable from Rule 16 of the Agreement which clearly and unambiguously provides that preference be given the senior employe possessing sufficient merit, capacity and qualifications for a bulletined vacancy. Rule 17, however, does not specify the senior employe, merely employes holding seniority.


The exact same issue involving the same parties and the identical contractual language, was presented and decided in Award 4533 (Carter). In that decision, the Board discusses Rule 5 (d) which is identical to our Rule 17, as follows:



We agree with Award 4533, re-emphasizing the fact that the interpreta tion of Rule 17 contained therein is sound and correct. We will deny the claim.


FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and 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


15627 6
That the Carrier did not violate the Agreement.








Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 16th day of June 1967.

Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.AL.
16627 7