NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS
AND STATION EMPLOYES
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood (GL-6491) that:
1. Carrier violated the rules of the Clerks' Agreement at Minneapolis, Minnesota when it required employes F. O. Worrell
and L. Neely, to suspend work on their regular assignments to
perform work in another seniority district, cross craft lines, and
enter into a different division to take a yard check at St.
Louis Park, Minnesota using their personal automobiles.
2. Carrier shall now be required to compensate employe F, O.
Worrell an additional four (4) hours at the time and one-half
rate of Position 14620, Yard Clerk, for each of the following
days:
June 2, 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, July 3, 5, 6 and 7,
1967
3. Carrier shall now be required to compensate employe L. Neely
an additional four (4) hours at the time and one-half rate of
Position 14620, Yard Clerk, for each of the following days:
July 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1967.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant F. 0. Worrell is the
regularly assigned occupant of Yard Clerk Position 14620. His assignment is
located at Minneapolis Minnesota Bass Lake Yard, in Seniority District
No. 25. His hours and days of assignment are 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. Monday
through Friday, with Saturday and Sunday rest days.
Claimant L. M. Neeley performed vacation relief work on Position
14620 from July 10, through and including July 14, 1967.
Employes Worrell and Neely were instructed by Agent A. J. O'Rourke
to suspend work on their regularly assigned position on each claim date, use
their personal automobiles, drive approximately 13 round-trip miles and
make a yard check of freight cars spotted at industries and elevators located in St. Louis Park, Minn.
to do, i.e., yard and industry check, nor did either perform work belonging
exclusively to any craft, nor did either exceed or cross seniority district
boundaries in the pursuit of assigned duties.
Claimant F. D. Worrell, on each date specifically identified in Item 2
of the Employees' Statement of Claim, worked his assigned position (Yard
Clerk Position No. 14620) during the assigned hours thereof (6:00 A.M. to
2:00 P.M.) and Claimant L. Neely, on each date specifically identified in
Item 3 of Employees' Statement of claim worked the assigned hours of the
position on which he performed vacation relief (Yard Clerk Position No.
14620-6:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.). Both claimants, of course, were paid eight
hours at the pro rata rate on each claim date, and properly so.
Attached hereto as Carrier's Exhibit "B" is a copy of a letter dated
December 15, 1967 from Mr. S. W. Amour, Vice President-Labor Relations,
directed to Mr. H. C. Hopper, General Chairman of the Clerks' Organization.
(Exhibits Not Reproduced)
OPINION OF BOARD:
We conclude from examination of this record
that the claims made herein have not been supported and must therefore be
denied.
The stated Claim itself alleges violation of agreement rules when the
Carrier required the two employes "to suspend work on their regular assignment to perform work in another seniority district, cross craft lines and
enter into a different division to take a yard check at St. Louis Park, Minnesota using their personal automobiles."
The record shows that Claimants have failed to establish,
(1) that the two subject employes had been required to do work
other than that assigned to them in the past; or
(2) that the work was done in seniority district other than theirs;
or
(3) that under any circumstances, they suffered a loss or depriva-
tion by these assignments; or
(4) that there is any schedule rule or agreement which supports
the penalty payments of four hours at time and one-half sought
by claimants for the actions alleged.
The record also fails to establish that the Claimants are the appropriate ones for the circumstances alleged. Logic would suggest that if there
was, in fact, an invasion by these two employes of the work rights of another, the latter would be in the position of the injured and the Claimant,
rather than the two on whose behalf the claims are here made.
The record also reflects uncertainty as to the violations identified and
redress sought. Employes acknowledge that under Rule 46(b) the employe
may use his automobile in the rendition of service when properly authorized
and compensated. But they go on to say:
"Carrier's offer of 8¢ per mile was considered inadequate, inequitable, unilateral and unreasonable in the face of high insurance
costs and risks. This is the crux of the employe's claims wherein
17548 4
they seek adequate compensation for the use of their personal
automobiles which the Agent required and ordered them to use in
the rendition of service for the Carrier."
If a claim for higher automobile mileage compensation is indeed "the
crux" of these claims, it is not detectable in the Statement of Claim which
has reached this Board.
For these reasons, we must deny the claim.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the
whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
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
That the
Agreement was not violated.
AWARD
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST: S. H. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of October 1969.
Central
Publishing Co
., Indianapolis, Ind. 46206 Printed in U.S.A.
17548 5