Docket No. CL-18218
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Charles W. Ellis, Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY. AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
(Involving employes on lines formerly operated by the
Wabash Railroad Company)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
Claim of the System Committee of the
Brotherhood (GL-6562) that:
(1) Carrier violated the following rules of the current Clerks'
Agreement: Rule 3(b), Rule 12, Section 1, paragraph (a), (g-5),
(i) and Rule 20(a) when during the week of November 13, 1967,
it failed or refused to properly compensate Clerk Mary Kusmer,
St. Louis Terminal, St. Louis, Missouri, by limiting her work week
to three (3) days. By virtue of said violations the Carrier shall
now:
(2) Compensate Clerk Mar,- Kusmer two (2) days at the
pro-rata rate in the amount of $23.68 for each day.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Claimant Mary Kusmer
is an extra and/or unassigned clerk on the St. Louis Terminal of the Norfolk
& Western Railway Company, Western Region (formerly Wabash Railroad
Company) with a seniority date of September 20, 1966.
The week of November 13, 1967 Clerk Rusmer was called to work by
the Carrier and her services utilized as follows:
Monday, November 13,1967-PositlonNo.187-Bill Clerk-Rate $23.68
Tuesday, November 14,1967-PositionNo.187-BillClerk-Rate$23.68
Friday, November 17,1967-PositionNo.187-BilIClerk-Rate$23.68
The claim was filed on behalf of Clerk Kusmer by Local Chairman F. bl.
Meehan on November 22, 1967 and was declined by Freight Agent R. J.
Hillgamyer on November 27, 1967.
a rule be adopted providing for a guaranteed extra board for clerks fn letter
dated May 14, 1968, reading as follows:
"NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
St. Louis, Missouri
May 14, 1968
103.121
Mr. Grady F. Jackson, Chairman
General Committee-B. of R.C.
St. Louis, :Missouri 63101
Referring to your letter of April 10, 1968, relative to the
claim of Mrs, Mary Rusmer for two (2) days pay at the pro rata
rate of Position 187, Bill Clerk, $23.68 per day, which was discussed
in conference on April 30, 1968.
The claim presented on behalf of Nlzs. Kusmer is not supported
by the rules of the Schedule for Clerks and is again respectfully declined.
During the conference on April 30 we also discussed your suggestion that a rule be adopted providing for a guaranteed extra
board for clerks.
We have given this matter careful consideration, and this is to
advise we are unwilling to establish a guaranteed extra board for
clerks.
Yours truly,
/s/ F. A. Johnson
Manager Labor Relations"
A copy of the exchange of correspondence between the representatives
of the parties in connection with the alleged dispute described in the Employes' ex parte Statement of Claim is attached hereto and made a part
hereof, marked Carrier's Exhibit ":9."
(Exhibits not reproduced.)
OPINION OF BOARD:
The Claimant, Mary Kusmer, is an extra clerk
on the St.
Louis
Terminal of the Norfolk and Western Railway Company,
St. Louis Terminal, St.
Louis,
Missouri. The week of November 13, 1967,
Claimant was called to work by Carrier to fill the temporary vacancy existing
on position No. 187, bill clerk, on November 13, 14 and 17, 1967, for which
claimant was allowed eight hours on each date. Claimant did not work on
the two remaining days of that week and makes this claim for those two
18043 6
additional days at the pro rata rate based upon the following rule appearing
in the agreement between the parties:
"Rule 3(b) Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the
reduction of days for employees covered by these rules below five
(5) per week except that this number may be reduced in a week
in which holidays occur by the number of such holidays."
Carrier cites the number of cases to the effect that a rule such as the
one in question here applies only to regularly assigned employes and has
no relation to extra employes. Award 3519 (Carter), Award 6968 (Carter),
Award 10170 (Gray), and Award 10350 (Gray).
By reason of the clear precedent cited by the Carrier to the effect that
Rule 3 (b) does not apply to the Claimant who was an extra clerk and for
other reasons which are not necessary to discuss here, we find that Carrier
did not violate the agreement.
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 ha, jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement was not violated.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of THIRD DIVISION
ATTEST: S. II. Schulty
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 17th day of July 1970.
Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, 111. Printed in U.S.A.
18043 7