NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT Oh' FACTS: Prior to June 12, 1961, Claimant Victor Gulledge, account of force reduction, was working as a Section Laborer in S^etion Gang No. 4 while Mr. J. W. Kloepper was employed as Assistant Extra Gang Foreman in Extfa Gang No. 2.
During the period June 12 to June 16, 1061, inclusive, regular Extra Gang Foreman G. W. McGee .vas on his annual vacation. Mr. J. W. Kloepper, who has a seniority date of September 6, 1957 as Section Foreman, was assigTed to and did fill the temporary vacancy thereby created.
Claimant Victor Gulledge, who bas a seniority date of June 5, 1950 as Section Foreman, was available, willing and qualified to Derform the subject relief work, but was not called to do so.
The Agreement in effect between the two parties to this dispute dated June 1, 1940, together with supplements, amendments and interpretations thereto is by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
CARRIER'S STATEMENT OF FACTS: Mr. Victor Gulledge entered the service of this Carrier in the track sub-department of the Maintenance of Way Department on the St. Louis Terminal Division on June 1, 1938, as a section laborer; was promoted to section foreman on June 5, 1950- and
Although the claim was subsequently appealed by the General Com mittee to both the Chief Engineer and the Manager-Personnel, the Committee did not in so doing refer to any rule in the Maintenance of Way Employes' agreement in support of the contention that the use of Mr. Kloepper on the temporary vacancy was in violation of the Maintenance of Way Employes' agreement, but merely stated that Mr. Gulledge should "have been assigned to this position * * * by reason of his greater seniority as foreman."
Copy of all of the correspondence had between the parties to this dispute is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Carrier's Exhibit A.
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier assigned an employe, junior in seniority to Claimant, to a 5-day vacation vacancy on a Foreman's position. The Claim filed with the Terminal Engineer alleged violation of Rule 1, paragraph (d),
of the Agreement. Carrier responded that the cited Rule was not applicable, and went on to say:
In the appeal to the Chief Engineer, the General Chairman did not cite any rule(s) of the Agreement which he contended to be violated. He averred:
The Chief Engineer denied the Claim for the same reasons given by the Terminal Engineer. On appeal to Carrier's highest officer, the General Chairman failed to cite any Rule, and stated:
This ultimate appeal on the property was denied for the same given reasons.
The issue is whether Petitioner to perfect its case had the burden of specifying the rule(s) allegedly violated. When confronted with the same issue, we have held that Petitioner had the burden. For reasons stated in Award Nos. 13741, 14081 and 14772, we will dismiss the instant 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
In failing to particularize the Rules allegedly violated, when it had the burden of doing so, Petitioner failed to perfect its Claim.