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-6427) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Carrier maintains three janitor positions in Seniority District No. 30 at Bensenville, Illinois, each of which works at a different location within the yard, as follows:
Employe L. O. McKenzie, who has a seniority date of June 10, 1963 is the occupant of Position 00120 and his work is confined to cleaning of the superintendent's office and building.
Employe W. H. Barton, who has a seniority date of February 7, 1967, is the regular occupant of Position 00140, and his work is confined to cleaning the hump switch building, hump office and switchmen's shanty .
Employe W. D. Daggett, who is the senior janitor with a seniority date of December 18, 1961, is the regular occupant of Position 00110, and his work is primarily confined to cleaning up buildings at the east end of the yard.
On February 22, 1967, Washington's Birthday holiday, the urgent duties of all three janitor positions were combined and performed. When the over-
Only Janitor Position 00140 was required on the holiday here involved and the occupant thereof, i.e., W. H. Barton, was, therefore, called and utilized to perform service during the regularly assigned hours (7:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M.) of his regularly assigned Position (Janitor Position No. 00140) on that day in accordance with the provisions of Rule 32(f) which reads as follows:
For the service performed by employe Barton on the holiday here involved, i.e., February 22, 1967, he was allowed 8 hours at the time and onehalf rate of his regularly assigned Janitor Position No. 00140 in accordance with the provisions of aforequoted Rule 35(h) and Rule 34(d) which reads in pertinent part as follows:
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 May 24, 1967.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant contends Carrier violated Rules 28, 32 (f) and 32 (g) of the Agreement. These Rules follow:
The question in this case seems to revolve mostly around Rule 32 (g) which requires that overtime assignments shall be made in accordance with seniority, fitness and ability when the duties to be performed on overtime cannot be identified with a specific position.
The record indicates that the janitor work performed by the junior employe on February 22, 1967, cannot be specifically identified with anyone of the three janitor positions located at Bensenville.
We believe that Claimant, on the basis of seniority, fitness and ability, should have been called to work on February 22, 1967.
Claimant was entitled to overtime work on February 22, 1967, on the basis of seniority and he should be paid the difference between the pro rata rate which he apparently has already received and the overtime rate to which he is entitled.
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
Claim sustained. Claimant shall receive the difference between the pro rata rate for eight hours work which he has received and the overtime rate to which he is entitled.