THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant John J. Daily is a regularly assigned signal maintainer. On January 23, 1963, he was required to suspend work on his own territory during regular working hours and perform work on an adjoining signal maintenance territory. The work consisted of repairing a broken line wire. The weather was clear and cold.
Claimant worked on the adjoining territory from 11 A. M. until 4 P. M., and submitted a claim for four hours' overtime pay.
Under date of February 5, 1963, Carrier's Assistant Communications and Signal Supervisor, Mr. F. T. Scharf, wrote a letter of denial (Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 1), to Mr. Daily. Then, on February 12th, the Supervisor wrote a letter of denial (Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 2).
On February 28, 1963, the General Chairman wrote a letter (Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 3) to the Signal Engineer, pointing out that the December 14, 1961 Memorandum of Agreement does not give the Carrier any right to use a signal maintainer to absorb overtime when a maintainer is on vacation, and requested that Supervisor Fort be advised to rescind his interpretation, which is not a correct interpretation for that Memorandum of Agreement.
On March 23, 1963, the Brotherhood's Local Chairman presented the matter to Supervisor Fort, requesting that Mr. Daily be allowed punitive over-
time as previously claimed. The Local Chairman's letter is Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 4. Subsequent exchange of pertinent correspondence is attached hereto as Brother'hood's Exhibit Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. As shown thereby, this dispute was handled in the usual and proper manner on the property, up to and including the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, without receiving a satisfactory settlement. As indicated by Brotherhood's Exhibit No. 10, the case was discussed in conference and the time limits extended.
There is an agreement in effect between the parties to this dispute, bearing an effective date of July 1, 1952, as amended, which is by reference made a part of the record in this dispute.
OPINION OF BOARD: On January 23, 1963, the Carrier required Signal Maintainer John J. Daily, during his regular working hours, to repair signal trouble in an adjoining signal maintenance territory. The regular signal maintainer in such territory was on vacation, no vacation relief having been provided to fill his position.
The Employes claim violations of Rules 5, 14 and 15 of the Agreement. The Carrier defends its action on the grounds that it was authorized either by the Memorandum of Agreement between the parties dated December 14 1961, or by Articles 6 and 10(b) of the National Vacation Agreement of December 17, 1941, as amended.
The Board finds that Article 10(b) of the Vacation Agreement controls this factual situation. Article 10 (b) contemplates that up to 25 per cent of a vacationing employe's work can be distributed among fellow employes without the hiring of a relief worker, provided this does not burden such fellow employes and thereby violate Article 6.
The Board further finds that the Employes have failed to prove that the work performed by Claimant Daily on January 23, 1963, was either in excess of 25 per cent of the work load of the vacationing employe or was a burden upon Daily.
Nothing in the Agreement, including its Rules 5, 14 and 15, prohibits the Carrier from assigning a signal maintainer to work outside his assigned territory. Any ambiguities in this respect are dispelled by the parties' Memorandum of Agreement dated December 14, 1961. Such memorandum not only governs. when such assignments do and do not result in additional one-half time pay; it also specifically endorses Articles 6 and 10 of the National Vacatiom Agreement.
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