NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Employees Union on the Missouri Pacific Railroad (Gulf District), that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: H Office is a communication office located in Palestine, Texas on the Missouri Pacific Railroad. There are three positions in this office that are required to perform service seven days per week irrespective of holidays. These positions are identified as centralized traffic control telegrapher positions. The duties assigned to these positions embrace the operation of a CTC machine that permits trains to enter, leave or be switched through the Palestine Yard and extending approximately ten miles in three directions, north, south and west. In addition to the C.TC operations these positions handle train orders and communication by Morse, telephone and teletype. Position No. 599, the regular assignment belonging to Claimant F. V. Eady, works from 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday with rest days of Saturday and Sunday. The managertelegrapher position is also assigned 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, with rest days on Saturday and Sunday. The manager's position entails duties such as Morse, teletype and testing of wires and regulating the same. TCU Exhibit 1 is a bulletin showing that the position works every (lay and there is no exclusion or exception as to holidays.
By message dated February 15, Superintendent J. C. Morrow issued the following instructions:
11. In further progression of this dispute on the property, the General Chairman at no time disputed the fact that claimant had not performed any duties assigned in "H" Office, including operating the control console, controlling the signals and switches at Palestine, exclusively. However, the General Chairman persisted in his contention that the first shift position of CTC-Telegrapher in "H" Office at Palestine could not be blanked on a holiday.
OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute arose because of Carrier's failure to have permitted Claimant to work his first shift CTC-Telegrapher position in the "H" office at Palestine, Texas on a legal holiday, in this instance Washington's Birthday, February 22, 1965, which holiday fell on Claimant's regularly assigned work day.
The Organization's position is that when work is required to be performed on a holiday such as here, the regular occupant of said position, Claimant herein, has the right to perform it; that it is undisputed that the first shift manager, W. M. Dickey, performed the duties of Claimant's position on the holiday in question; that Carrier did not prove that the said manager had ever performed CTC work on a regularly assigned work day, although he does it on rest day relief; that the work involved here belongs exclusively to the CTC operator on his regularly assigned 5-day work week.
Carrier's defense to this claim is that Carrier is not prohibited from blanking positions such as Claimant's on legal holidays; that Claimant's position is not assigned to work holidays, but it is a 5-day position assigned to work five days except holidays; that work within the "H" office at Palestine is not specifically assigned to one employe, and Carrier thus has the right to have the manager perform work of a blanked position on a legal holiday inasmuch as said manager performs the work of Claimant's position on Claimant's rest days.
It is undisputed that Carrier's manager performed the duties of Claimant's position on the day in question. However, Claimant's position is a 5-day assignment, rest days Saturday and Sunday, first shift 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. in the "H" office at Palestine, Texas. The manager's position is also a first shift, 7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M., 7-day assignment with rest days Saturday and Sunday. It is also undisputed that the assistant manager and night chief operator perform the duties of Claimant's position on Claimant's rest days. Therefore, it can be concluded that the disputed work performed on said holiday did not belong exclusively to Claimant's position.
Petitioner has cited Rules 1, 4(d), 5 and 15 as being violated by Carrier in this instance. The manager's position is under the scope rule of the Agreement, and the scope rule being general in nature, the burden was upon Petitioner to prove that the work belonged exclusively to his position, which we have pointed out aforesaid does not belong exclusively to Claimant's said position.