Award Number 17513 Docket Number CL-18119 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE, AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION
EMPLOYES
THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY
(Chesapeake District)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6551) that:
1. At Russell, Kentucky among other positions titled Section Storekeeper, are positions A-5 and A-9. Section Storekeeper A-5 was regularly assigned to Claimant Hubert A, Thompson. The duties of Section Storekeeper A-5 are to have charge of and be responsible for ordering, receiving, accounting for and issuing upon receipt of proper requisitions, the following materials:
attached hereto and identified as Carrier's Exibit "D", confirming such rediscussion.
The Carrier submits that the claimant was properly permitted to observe his Birthday Holiday on April 24, 1967, for which he was compensated one day's pay as Holiday pay, and he is not now entitled to an additional day's pay at the punitive rate under the application of the August 21, 1954 Agreement, as amended by the August 19, 1960 and November 20, 1964 Agreements, or the rules of the General Agreement.
OPINION OF BOARD: The issue herein is whether or not Claimant's position of Storekeeper A-5 at Russell, Ky. was worked on Claimant's birthday, April 24, 1967, while Claimant was off duty on account of his birthday holiday.
The Organization contends that although Rule 42(b) of the Agreement permits Carrier not to work Claimant's position on his birthdayholiday, nevertheless, if Carrier required that any of the assigned duties of said position be performed on Claimant's birthday-holiday, then Carrier was required by the mandatory provisions of Rule 35(a) of the Agreement to give first preference to Claimant, as the regularly assigned employe, to work the position on his birthday holiday; that this is particularly true in view of paragraph 1 of the Memorandum of Agreement between the parties dated April 19, 1963; that some of the duties of Claimant's position were performed by the holder of the position of Storekeeper A-9 as well as by the A-12, Typist-Clerk and the E-3 Division Storekeeper employe.
Carrier's position is that there were no duties performed by employes either inside or outside of Claimant's class of service that were exclusive to Claimant's said Section Storekeeper position; that Claimant was permitted to take the day off with pay and that he is not entitled to an additional day's pay under the August 21, 1954 Agreement as amended or the rules of the Agreement between the parties hereto; that the duties of Storekeeper A-5 and A-9 are identical and thus it cannot be held that duties performed on said positions are relegated solely to either position; that the holder of Clerk Typist position A-12 performed work on said date that is properly required of said position.
The Organization does not in this instance contest the right of Carrier to blank Claimant's position on his birthday-holiday. It rests its case on the proposition that Claimant's position was worked said date by employes holding other Storekeeper positions in violation of the Agreement.
A close examination of the record shows that the duties of Section Storekeeper A-5 and A-9 positions are identical. Further, petitioner alleges, without corroborating proof, that the holders of Division Storekeeper position E-3 and A-12, Typist-Clerk performed some of the duties of Claimant's position on the date in question. Mere assertions without substantive proof is of no probative value. Claimant in this instance failed to prove that the holders of Storekeeper A-9, Division Storekeeper E-3 and A-12, Typist-Clerk performed work which they were not entitled to perform as part of their regular assignment or performed any duties which were exclusively assigned to Claimant's position.