BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAM
SHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6597) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The facts are as follows: There is in evidence an Agreement bearing effective date April 16, 1954, including revisions, (hereinafter referred to as Agreement) between the New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal (hereinafter referred to as the Carrier) and its employes represented by the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes (hereinafter referred to as the Employes) which is on file with this Board and by reference thereto is hereby made a part of this dispute.
On Saturday, December 23, 1967, Carrier anticipated heavy business at the ticket counter for Sunday, December 24, 1967. Carrier called and used Mrs. Joyce Saltaformaggio who was a furloughed employe notwithstanding her seniority date of September 18, 1954 and placed her junior to Mr. C. Cottone, hereinafter referred to : ; the Claimant whose seniority date is
August 21, 1949. At the time of this dispute Claimant was assigned to Mail Separator Position, hours 4:00 P.M. to 12:00 P.M., rest days, Sunday and Monday.
Claim was filed by the Employes for and in behalf of Claimant to Mr. E. P. Capelle, General Passenger and Ticket Agent, alleging that Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to call and use Claimant for extra Ticket Clerk's Position because no extra or furloughed employe was available account of having already worked their forty (40) hours for this particular week. Under date of February- 15. 1968, Mi. Cappella wrote the Employes and advised that Claimant's home was called but his telephone was not answered,
extra help is known to be needed, calls be made as early as possible since other offices, may, also require additional help, and coordination is neces_ ary in order that the principle of seniority be observed in calling extra help. Mr. Rapp called several employee in seniority order, among them, Mr. Cottone who held a regular position as a Mail and Baggage Handler on the date of the claim. His position as a Mail and Baggage Handler worked Tuesday through Saturday, with hours of 4:00 P.M. to 12:00 MN. Since it was necessary to make the call for the aforesaid reasons of coordination, before Mr. Cottons commenced his assignment as a Mail and Baggage Handler, the call was made to his home. This was five (5) hours before Mr. Cottone was due to go to work as a Mail and Baggage Handler.
Mr. Rapp called Mr. Cottons's home and received no answer to the call. (See Carrier's Exhibit A, affidavit by Mr. Rapp). Since Mr. Cottons could not be contacted, Mr. Rapp then called a clerk, junior to him and filled the position.
Mr. J. R. Borrelli, Jr., General Chairman, made a claim, dated December 28, 1967, addressed to Mr. E. P. Capelie, General Passenger and Ticket Agent, for ten (10) hours pay at the time and one half rate, stating Mr. Cottone was available and willing to work on Sunday, December 24, 1967. Mr. Capelle declined the claim under date of February 15, 1968 based on the fact Mr. Cottone was called, but could not be reached and it was necessary that the position be filled so a junior employe was called.
Under date of March 8, 1968, Mr. Borrelli appealed the claim to the Terminal Manager which was declined on May 2, 1968 on the basis there was no violation of the Agreement since efforts were made to contact Mr. Cottons and being unsuccessful, a junior employe was used. Conference was held on May 30, 1968 at which conference Terminal Manager agreed to investigate further, but at a conference held again on June 11, 1968, the original decision was reiterated and the appeal declined since his investigation did not reveal any facts to sustain a contrary disposition of the case.
OPINION OF BOARD: It is well established that the burden is upon the Petitioner to prove all essential elements of its claim. In the dispute covered by this docket, the Petitioner has not submitted probative evidence to warrant finding that the Carrier violated the Agreement. The claim will, therefore, be denied.
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