BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAM
SHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
has a seniority date of November 8, 1950 in Seniority District No. 22, is the regularly assigned occupant of Head Clerk Position 07110 at Muskego Yards, Milwaukee, Wisconsin from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M., Monday through Friday.
assigned from 3 P.M. to 11 P.M., Wednesday through Sunday, was temporarily vacant. In lieu of calling senior employe wuerl, Carrier called and used employe F. J. Holzem, a junior employe with a seniority date of May 22, 1964 and regular occupant of Yard Clerk Position 07540 to fill Assistant Chief Clerk Position 09480 that day.
09480 are in Seniority District No. 22. Both positions are located in the Muskego Yard Office and are under the jurisdiction and on the payroll of the Agent who bulletins and makes the assignments to those positions.
Head Clerk Position 07110 for February 18, 1967 was filed by employe Wuerl with Agent H. E. Chalifoux and was declined by him in his unsigned letter dated March 13, 1967 on the basis that employe wuerl was not fully qualified and competent to perform the duties required to the full extent. See Employes' Exhibit "A".
Holzem was called. Employe Holzem has a seniority date of May 22, 1964 in Seniority District No. 22 and is regularly assigned occupant of Yard Clerk Position No. 07540 at the Muskego Industrial Control Center, Milwaukee Wisconsin which is assigned from 3:30 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. Monday through Friday with Saturday and Sunday rest days. Copy of the last bulletin issued prior to the instant claim date advertising Yard Clerk Position No. 07540 is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit "C".
Rule 32(g) of the then effective Schedule Agreement between the parties here in dispute reads as follows:
"When additional help is required for overtime work, or when the duties to be performed on overtime cannot be identified with a specific position, employes will be assigned to such overtime in accordance with seniority, fitness and ability, first from the sub-division of the department wherein the work occurs and, secondly, from the entire department." (Emphasis ours)
Claimant Wuerl was not called to fill Assistant Chief Clerk Position No. 09480 on an overtime basis on Saturday, February 18, 1967 under the provisions of Rule 32(g) because he did not possess the fitness and ability to adequately and competently perform and fulfill the duties of that position.
There is attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit "D" copy of letter written by Mr. S. W. Amour, Vice President-Labor Relations, to Mr. H. C. Hopper, General Chairman, under date of August 15, 1967.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Claimant, a senior employee, filed a claim with the Agent on February 18, 1967, for eight hours pay at the pro rata rate, account "Run around-not being called for extra work-younger clerk Frank Holzem worked Rack Position 2nd Shift" Claim was denied and, thereafter, the Local Chairman on April 21, 1967, appealed it to the Superintendent, who declined it on May 4, 1967. Eventually the Vice PresidentLabor Relations declined the same on August 15, 1967.
Our purpose in reciting these various dates is to highlight the procedural issue raised by the Carrier. It is the latter's argument that the instant claim is defective in that it was not presented "to the officer of the Carrier authorized to receive same within 60 days from the date of the occurrence on which the claim or grievance is based", Article V, Section 1(a) of the August 21, 1954 National Agreement.
On April 29, 1966, the Carrier furnished the Organization with a list of Carrier officers to whom claims or grievances should be presented in the first instance and on appeal. Therein, the Superintendent is listed as the Carrier Officer authorized to receive a claim or grievance in the first instance. Relating this to the instant grievance, the facts indicate that the employee filed the claim initially with the Agent. The Superintendent was not presented with the claim until April 21, 1967, 62 days after the occurrence on which it was based.
In this posture, it is our view that the instant claim is barred pursuant to Section 1(a), of Article V of the National Agreement. (See Awards 16697 and 16014). We would also cite NDC Decision 5, wherein it was held that: