Award No. 17262 Docket No. TE-16586
THIRD DIVISION
(Supplemental)
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Employees Union of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (Gulf District), that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: There is a negotiated position of agent-telegrapher at Loreauville, Louisiana, assigned hours of 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., Monday through Friday. During the period in question and on the dates enumerated in the claim the Carrier did not assign an employee under the Agreement to perform the work requirements at Loresuville. A portion of the agency work was worked on a call basis by L. J. Bienvenm, who was occupying a position at the adjoining agency at Arnaudville, Louisiana. The Carrier paid a call payment and car mileage on each date in question but failed to assign an employee under the Agreement in accordance with the rules. Claim was made in behalf of the senior idle telegrapher, extra in preference, for each day and was appealed to the highest officer and declined by him. Claim is now properly before your Board for final adjudication.
Extra Telegrapher J. H. Guillory for eight hours each day June 24, 30 and July 1, 1965, when it is alleged Telegraphers' Agreement was violated by the Carrier in blanking the Agent position at Loreauville, Louisiana.
Claims on behalf of unnamed employes are invalid under the provi sions of Article V of the August 21, 1954 Agreement because the claimants have not been named or otherwise properly identified. See Third Division Award 11754.
Carrier's investigation reveals that on the dates of the claims the Extra Telegraphers were protecting positions at other points and there was no Extra Telegrapher available to protect the Loreauville agency position. It is a well established principle, established by Third Division awards, that Carrier may blank positions in the absence of the regular assigned employe. The position here in question was under bulletin and there was no regular assigned employe attached to the position. During the period of the claim Extra Telegrapher protecting the Arnaudville agency position was paid a call and car mileage to drive from Arnaudville to handle such work as was necessary. This does not lend support for a contention that the position was not blanked.
OPINION OF BOARD: During the period of the claim the agency position at Loreauville, Louisiana, was vacant pending bulletin and assignment. On the claim dates an extra telegrapher, who was protecting the agency position at Arnaudville, Louisiana, an adjoining station, was given a call to go to Loreauville to handle whatever business was necessary for the Carrier's patrons at the latter station.
In the handling of the dispute on the property the only rule of the Agreement cited by the Organization was the Scope Rule, but there was no showing as to how the Scope Rule was violated. The Carrier took the position that there were no extra telegraphers available; that the position, on the dates involved in the claim, was blanked, and that Carrier may blank positions in the absence of the regularly assigned employe.
In its Statement of Claim to this Board the Petitioner alleges a violation of the Scope Rule, but still does not explain how the Scope Rule may be involved. In the Position of the Employees, the Petitioner cites Rule 5-Basic Day; Rule 9-Guarantee, and Rule 38-Rates of Pay and Classification, and contends that the position should have been filled by an employe under the Agreement on an eight-hour basis.
This Board has held on numerous occasions that a Carrier has a right to blank a vacancy or position in whole or in part. See Awards 8346, 9007, 12099, 13217, among others.
The Board finds no basis in the record for the claim before it, and the claim will accordingly be denied.