BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS
AND STATION EMPLOYES
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On December 22, 1966, General Yardmaster R. S. Van Inwegan notified claimants named in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the above claim that their positions would not work on the Christmas Day Holiday, December 26, 1966 (Employes' Exhibit A), yet in each case the Carrier found it necessary to work the positions that day and instead of utilizing the regular assigned employes (the claimants), Carrier utilized the services of junior employes.
On December 26, 1966, General Yardmaster R. S. Van Inwegan notified the two claimants named in Parts 4 and 5 of the above claim that their positions would not work on the New Years Day Holiday, January 2, 1967 (Employes' Exhibit B), yet in both cases, the Carrier found it necessary to work the positions that day and instead of utilizing the regular assigned employes (the claimants), Carrier utilized the services of junior employes.
Claim filed by the Local Chairman with Trainmaster Huff on February 7, 1967, (Employes' Exhibit C) who denied the claim on February 15, 1967. (Employes' Exhibit D) by merely stating "* * * this claim is denied." and without giving any reason for the disallowance as required by the rule. On March 1, 1967, the Local Chairman notified the Trainmaster that his decision was not acceptable and would be appealed. (Employes' Exhibit E).
On March 10, 1967, the Division Chairman appealed the claim to Superintendent R. L. Downing (Employes' Exhibit F) who denied the claim on April 7, 1967. (Employes' Exhibit G). On May 8, 1967, the Division Chairman notified the Superintendent that his decision was not acceptable and would be appealed. (Employes' Exhibit H).
On May 24, 1967, the General Chairman appealed the claim to Mr. R. A. Carroll, General Manager-Labor Relations, the highest officer of the Carrier designated to handle labor disputes. (Employes' Exhibit I).
There is no dispute between the parties that the issue and principle in each of the five claims incorporated in this one submission is identical and as each claim was filed within the time limits and handled on appeal in the usual and prescribed manner, the Employes' record of handling on the property is being documented below without the exchanges of correspondence being reproduced.
Local Chairman filed claim with Trainmaster Huff on February :3, 1967.
second trick yard engine assignments and the two 3 P.M. to 11 P.iSI, yard cleric assignments would also have to be worked and, therefore, Messrs. Lane and Coleman were called to cover their regular assignments by Chief Caller W. G. Cuddeback. Caller Cuddeback was unable to contact them, see statements attached as (Carrier's Exhibits B and C), thus, junior employees were called and worked.
Carrier determined that on New Years Day, January 2, 1967, service requirements did not warrant working the two 3 P.M. to 11 P.M. yard cleric assignments. Messrs. Lane and Coleman, the incumbents of these positions, were so notified on December 29, 1966. About 12 noon it was decided that because of bad weather conditions, the annulled second trick yard engine assignments and the two clerical assignments would have to be worked. Accordingly, Messrs. Lane and Coleman were called to cover their regular assignments by Chief Caller W. G. Cuddeback. Caller Cuddeback was unable to contact them, see statements attached as (Carrier's Exhibits D and E), thus junior employees were called and worked.
Claims filed on behalf of Messrs. Sharp, Lane, and Coleman, hereinafter referred to as claimants, account not worked on the involved dates were timely instituted and handled in the proper procedure. The statements attached as Carrier's Exhibit A through E were shown to Organization representatives when the cases were discussed in conference on November 15 and 1 >, 1967. Copies Nvere furnished to the Organization on January 5, 1968 with Carrier's confirming denial letter of claims (Carrier's Exhibit F). On February 8, 1968, the Organization wrote Carrier furnishing vague statements from the claimants dated February 4 and 5, 1968, or over 1 year after the dates of claim, alleging they were home and available (Exhibits G through L), to which Carrier replied on February 23, 1968, (Exhibit 113). On May 29, 1968, (Exhibit M), or 13 days before the case was submitted to this tribunal for adjudication, Petitioner submitted a letter of how the involved assignments have been used in the past on holidays and in connection with its statement that based thereon it was "unable to understand General Yardmaster Van Invegan's advance decision to lay in the positions here involved on the holidays in question."
OPINION OF BOARD: Carrier initially informed the Claimants herein that they would not work their regular assignments on the holidays in question. Later, Carrier found it necessary to work their said assignment.
Carrier alleges that it's Chief Caller, L. T. Davenport, called each Claimant by telephone for work on said holidays, but each Claimant was not available; and therefore it was justified in using junior employes for said work.
The record shows that Carrier's Chief Caller, L. T. Davenport, made statements stating that he made only one attempt by telephone to reach each of the claimants because of other pressing calls to be made.
Each Claimant made a statement stating that they were at home and available to work on the dates in question.
This Board has been confronted with similar disputes as to whether or not one phone call is sufficient effort on the part of Carrier to call Claimant employes on said days in question.