STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Central of Georgia Railway Company that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute arose because Carrier blanked and did not fill the vacancy created at Macon Junction Interlocking beginning December 9, 1963, when Mr. R. H. Varner took his ten (10) day vacation.
Carrier's action caused violations of the July 1, 1950 Memorandum of Understanding with Respect to an Operational Problem at Macon Junction Interlocking and the June 1, 1955 Supplemental Agreement to occur. These have been reproduced and are identified as Brotherhood's Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. As a result of the violations, General Chairman E. C. Melton instituted claim on behalf of Mr. O. E. Kitchings, the senior Assistant Signalman working in the Signal Gang, for compensation amounting to the difference between what he was paid at the Assistant Signalman rate while working in the gang during the claim period and what he would have been paid if he had been assigned to fill the vacancy in accordance with the Memorandum and Supplemental Agreement.
The rules and working conditions agreement between the parties is effective July 1, 1950, as amended. Copies are on file with the Board, and the Agreement, as amended, is hereby made a part of this dispute as though reproduced herein word for word.
OPINION OF BOARD: Petitioner's claim alleges that Carrier violated the Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding dated June 1, 1950 when it failed and refused to fill the vacancy of the second trick Signal Maintainer at the Macon Junction Interlocking with Claimant while the incumbent was on vacation. That position was allowed to remain unfilled. Petitioner particularly emphasizes the June 1, 1955 Supplemental Agreement and the July 1, 1950 "Memorandum of Understanding with Respect to an Operational Problem at Macon Junction Interlocking' which provide, among other things, that a second shift Signal Maintainer position will be employed Monday through Friday at Macon Junction Interlocking and that vacation relief work will be performed by Assistant Signalmen or Helpers in the signal gang.
Carrier has rejected the claim on the following grounds: 1) The claim is barred because the claim presented to this Board was not the same claim filed and handled on the property; and Petitioner's attempt to amend it should not be allowed; 2) Carrier was not required to fill the position because a vacancy did not exist under the terms of the National Vacation Agreement; 3) Even if a vacancy did exist, Claimant was not qualified to fill it; 4) Even if Claimant were qualified to fill it, he did not apply for the position; and 5) In any event, during the period in question, Claimant was working either as a Signalman or Leading Signalman and was paid as much or more, so that there was no "difference" of pay for which he should be compensated.
The pertinent provisions of the Agreements and Memorandum in question are set forth below:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH RESPECT TO
AN OPERATIONAL PROBLEM AT MACON
JUNCTION INTERLOCKING
Parenthetically, we should state that the "special condition" prevailing at the Macon Junction Interlocking is not revealed in the record.
Contrary to Petitioner's assertion that the Vacation Agreement and the Schedule Agreement are in conflict and that the later Schedule Agreement applies, the Board finds that the two agreements are not in conflict and may be construed together.
Under the terms of Article 6 of the National Vacation Agreement, Carrier has the right not to provide a vacation relief worker if he is not needed and if there is no burden on those employes remaining on the job. There is no evidence in the record to show that a relief worker was needed on the second trick or that the absence of such relief worker would burden the other employes. There is uncontroverted evidence that Carrier customarily blanked any position which was not necessary to fill while the incumbent was on vacation.
If the Carrier determines that a vacation relief worker is needed, then the June 1, 1955 Supplemental Agreement comes into play and specifies who will perform the vacation relief work. The two agreements, therefore, are complementary.
There is nothing in the Memorandum of Understanding which requires Carrier to provide a relief worker for the second trick Signal Maintainer position while the incumbent is on vacation.
After having determined that Carrier is not required to provide a relief worker under these circumstances, the remaining issues are moot.
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