Award Number 17587 Docket Number SG-18182
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY
COMPANY
- EASTERN LINES -
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen on the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This dispute involves the application of Section 12(b) of the National Vacation Agreement and the Employes' contention that Carrier made no effort to observe the principle of seniority when from August 14 to 18, 1967, it provided relief while the Signal Maintainer at Topeka, Kansas was on vacation.
Despite the specific request made through the Signal Foreman of Gang # 2 to the Signal Supervisor's office by Eastern Division Signalman R. L. Leach that he be permitted to work that particular week in relief at Topeka, Carrier assigned a junior Signalman, Mr. D. R. Horne, to work the position.
Mr. Leach has seniority in Class B as of 6-25-62; whereas, Mr. Horne has a date in the class of 2-07-66. Leach is senior to Home in Class B, which class includes employe classifications of Special TCS Signal Maintainer, Signalman, Signal Maintainer, Signal Shop Signalman, Retarder Signal Maintainer, and TCS Signal Maintainer.
The Employes, in the instant dispute, contend that Claimant Leach, who is senior to Mr. Horne, should have been used to perform the vacation relief work at Topeka during Mr. Henry's absence, basing their contt·ntion on the fact that Claimant had, previous to August 14, 1967, advised the Signal Supervisor's office that he desired to protect the assignment. The Employes indicated that Claimant, while assigned to Signal Gang No. 2, asked his forernan to contact the Signal Supervisor's Office at Emporia to see if he could relieve Mr. Henry during the period August 14-18, 1967. Signal ^oreman Young did make the request, as evidenced by his stateinent as follows:
It wi;l he noted in then Signal Foreman Young's letter to Local Chairman Henry- that Mr. Franklin said he "thought" Horne would relieve him, he did not say that Horne "would" relieve him. It has not been the practice in the Eastern Division to make assignments based on telephone conversathin, wit~imvt a letter to confirm such a request. Claimant Leacb did not follow up the request in writing.
The instant claim was initially presented to the Carrier's Superintcndert at Emporia, Kansas, by Local Chairman W. L. Henry in an undated letter, received in the Superintendent's Office on September 8, 1967, and attached as Carrier's Exhibits "B" through "M" is the exchange of correspondence in the appeal of the claim to and including the highest Officer of Appeal, Mr. 0. M. Ramsey. Following Mr. Ramsey's declination of th·s claim ca March 28, 1968 (Carrier's Exhibit "G") the case was disc_·:.sed i;, conference at Chicago on May 13, 1968 and the prior declination was rcaf;irmed.
OPINION OF BOARD: The Signal Maintainer at Topeka, Kansas, e:a, on vacation August 14 to August 18, 1967. This Claimant made oral request to relieve the relief Signal Maintainer, who was attending a convention, to the reliof Signal Foreman on Gang #2. The relief Signal Foreman ten called the office and relayed the request of Claimant for this relief work. An employee, junior in seniority to Claimant, was called by Carrier to work en the position of the vacationing Signal Maintainer on the dates in question. The Organization contends that Claimant, who was senior to the employee used by Carrier to perform the vacation relief work, shrild have been allowed to perform this work. Carrier contends t'-hat it has not baen the practice on this property to make assignments based on telephone cm_versations without a letter confirming such a request. COrrier further contends that this dispute should be decided on the basis o; .article cb(il (first in-first oat rule) and that Section 12(b) should
be disregarded. Claimant contends that this dispute should be settled on the basis of Section 12(b). Section 12(b) is as follows:
This Board finds that Carrier's contentions are without merit. The record is void of any requirement that a request to work relief must be in writing. The record is also void of any probative evidence that Carrier made any serious effort to observe the principle of seniority in this instance.
It, therefore, follows that Carrier violated the Agreement by not utilizing the services of this Claimant who was the senior employee available for this relief work.
This Board further finds that the claim should have included the date of August 14th, and, therefore, the claim will only be sustained insofar as August 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1967.
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 for August 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1967; claim denied for August 14, 1967.