NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(SUPPLEMENTAL)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Employees Union on the Pennsylvania Railroad, that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACT: Claimant, a Group 1 employee, was in terms of seniority the oldest of three substitute agents whose names were maintained on a list for the seniority district involved here. His regularly assigned position, for which he was compensated at the rate of $425 per month, was located at Indianapolis, Indiana, and was covered by the terms of an Agreement between the Carrier and the Clerks' Organization.
From March 19, 1964, to May 5, 1964, the position of Agent at Spencer, Indiana, was temporarily vacant due to the illness of the reg. ular incumbent. From March 19, 1964, to and including April 1, 1964, it was filled by a regular Relief Agent. The three positions just referred to were included in the Rate Schedule of the effective Agreement between the parties as follows:
OPINION OF BOARD: The issue in this case is whether or not Claimant F. L. Alexander, who was Number One on the List of Substitute Agents, had a demand right to the work in controversy.
At all pertinent times Alexander, who was also a member of the Clerks' Organization, was exercising his seniority and occupying an assignment under the Clerks' Agreement.
The Organization takes the position that Carrier was obligated to move Alexander into the vacancy and that a contrary posture "would render Regulation 5-A-1(a) meaningless." Thus Employes rely on a broad interpretation of such rule, which reads:
The only other rule support cited by Employes is whatever may be found in Regulation 1-A-1 reading:
The crux of Employes' argument is that since Rule 5-A-1(a) requires that the number of persons on the list be consistent with the requirements of the service, the persons on such list are entitled to be used in preference to employes such as those to whom the instant work was assigned. They characterize 5-A-1(a) as mere surplusage in the absence of such an interpretation. They overlook the fact that specific provision for the use of substitute agents is found in Regulation 1-C-1(b):
We are of the opinion that the provision just quoted sets forth in full the circumstances under which a substitute agent becomes entitled to an assignment. In the instant case the vacancy was not advertised, nor did the rules so require. Under such facts, the essential condition precedent to an application of Regulation 1-C-1(b) was lacking. Such being the case, Substitute Agent F. L. Alexander cannot complain.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, 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