NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
2. There is in addition to the Agreement referred to above, a Memorandum of Agreement dated December 14, 1961 in effect between these same parties governing the use of Signal Maintainers off their assigned territories. A copy of this Memorandum of Agreement is attached as Carrier's Exhibit A.
3. During June, 1963 the Signal Maintainer assigned to the Minco, Oklahoma Maintenance Territory took his assigned vacation, three weeks. His position was not filled by a vacation relief signal maintainer.
4. During the Mince, Oklahoma Signal Maintainer's vacation, Signal Maintainer M. W. Kiser of Marlow, Oklahoma and M. D. Stowe of El Reno, Oklahoma, were used to perform certain work on the Mince, Oklahoma territory.
5. The Signalmen filed claim on July 22, 1963 in behalf of Signal Maintainers M. W. Kiser and M. D. Stowe for 34%a hours and 2-8/12 hours, respectively, basing their claim on the December 14, 1961 Memorandum of Agreement. (See Carrier's Exhibit B.)
6. Carrier's Signal and Communications Supervisor at El Reno, Oklahoma, Mr. E. L. Bartholomew, declined the Employes' claim for additional payment for the time Signal Maintainers Stowe and Kiser spent off their assigned territories by his letter dated July 29, 1963. (See Carrier's Exhibit C.)
7. On August 8, 1963, the Employes appealed this claim to Carrier's Superintendent, Mr. A. E. Anderson, at El Reno, Oklahoma (see Carrier's Exhibit D), who declined the Employes' appeal on August 30, 1963 (see Carrier's Exhibit E).
8. The Employes appealed this claim to Carrier's highest officer designated to handle disputes, Mr. G. E. Mallery, Vice President-Personnel, by their letter of October 3, 1963 (see Carrier's Exhibit F), who declined their appeal on November 29, 1963 (see Carrier's Exhibit G).
9. This claim was further discussed in conferences on February 4, 5 and July 9, 1964, but was not settled. The time limit for progressing this claim was extended during the various conferences.
OPINION OF BOARD: During the three-week vacation of the signal maintainer for the Mince, Oklahoma signal maintenance territory, the Carrier ordered adjoining territory Signal Maintainer M. W. Kiser to perform work in the Minco territory on several occasions. On one other occasion, another adjoining territory signal maintainer, M. D. Stowe, stepped into the Minco territory to replace a blown fuse which operated a signal in his own territory as well as a signal in the Minco territory.
The Employes contend (1) that none of the work in the Minco territory was authorized by Rule 14 of the Working Agreement, and (2) that the hours worked in the Minco territory totaled 36 and ?5 hours, or more than 25 per cent of the vacationing signal maintainer's workload, which constitutes a violation of Rule 10(b) of the National Vacation Agreement.
The Board finds nothing in Rule 14, or in decisions of this Board interpreting said rule, that supports the interpretation advanced by the Employes. Rule 14 is only part of the entire contractual relationship between the parties, the National Vacation Agreement also being a part of it as well as the parties' Memorandum of Agreement dated December 14, 1961. This Board in its interpretations of Rule 14 or of other specific rules must not adopt meanings which deny life to other provisions of the parties' agreements.
Articles 6 and 10 of the National Vacation Agreement clearly allow the Carrier to distribute work of a vacationing employe among his fellow workers without hiring a relief worker under certain circumstances. The parties' Memorandum of Agreement dated December 14, 1961, specifically endorses Articles 6 and 10 of the National Vacation Agreement.
Since the interpretation of Rule 14 desired by the Employes would disallow practices specifically authorized by the National Vacation Agreement, the Board is not able to adopt such proposed interpretation.
The question becomes one of determining if the carrier has violated Articles 6 or 10 of the National Vacation Agreement. Articles 6 and 10 authorize the Carrier to blank a vacationing employe's position and distribute part of his work to fellow employes, provided (1) they are not burdened thereby, (2) the vacationing employe is not burdened upon his return to work, and (3) not more than 25 per cent of the vacationing employe's workload is so distributed. The burden of proving a violation of Articles 6 and 10 rests upon the Employes.
The Board finds that the Employes have not sustained their burden of proving that the actual time worked in the Minco territory-whatever it may have been-exceeded 25 per cent of the work load of the vacationing employe.
The Board also notes that no proof was offered to establish that the complained-of events burdened either the employes who performed the work or the vacationing employe upon his return to work. This being the case, the Board cannot find that any violation of the National Vacation Agreement occurred.
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