BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE & STEAMSHIP
CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND
STATION EMPLOYES
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee o: the Brotherhood (GL-6697) that:
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: 1. Clerk D. Loya is assigned to the position of Janitor-Caller (022), Harlingen, Texas, with assigned rest days being Sunday and y!onday of each work week.
Harlingen, Texas is located on Carrier's Kingsville Division, in Seniority District No. 26.
2. Clerk Loya performed service fui the Carrier on three (3) consecutive holidays as follows:
8. Cleric Loya having performed service for the Carrier on three (3) consecutive holidays, turned in time claims, claiming six (6) hours additional pay at punitive rate each day May 30, 1968 and July 4, 1968. The time claims were presented in writing,' to Carrier's Superintendent Mr. R. If. Blassingame according to Carrier's instruction, of July 25, 1963. (Employes' Exhibits Nos.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant is making claim herein for additional pay for working on May 30, 1968, a holiday, on the basis that he was called to work three holidays in a row.
On 'lie property Claimant put in a claim to the Carrier's Superintendent for said pay and on July 30, 1968 ,s~d Superintendent replied as follows:
Thereafter, Carrier's 'Manager of Disbursements Accounting, R. II. Stallings, advised Claimant by letter dated August 7, 1968 that inasmuch as Claimant performed no service on January 1, 1968, additional time claimed for May 30 was not allowed. Claimant teas paid the 6 hours for working July 4, 1968.
Carrier raises a procedural defect in that Claimant did not progress the claim through the proper channels on the property prior to the Organization's submission of the di;p,,:e to this Board. Carrier contends that Claimant filed a time slip for the additional pay, as distingu:ched from a time claim, with Carriea~'s Superintendent. Carrier further contends that filing of the time slip, erroneously allowed by the Superintendent, did not relieve Claimant of the requirement of initiating a time claim with Carrier's Superintendent after he had been informed by Carrier's Manager of Disbursement Accounting that pay for May 30 was erroneously approved by Carrier's said Superintendent.
The organization's position is that Claimant filed his own time claim with said Superintendent as he is empowered to do under Rule 29 of the Agreement; that Carrier's Manager of Disbursements, who has never been included in the channels of processing claims, or authorized to handle same, declined to pay the claim for May 30, 1968; that the Organization had no reason to handle the claim with the General Manager for it had no decision to appeal since the claim had been allowed by the Superintendent.
We agree with the contention of Carrier in this regard. The "time slip" originally submitted by Claimant to the Superintendent did not amount to a "time claim" within the intent and meuning of Rule 29 of the Agreement, and that Claimant should have filed a "time claim" with the Superintendent after being advised by Carrier's Manager of Disbursement Accounting that his "time slip" was not allowed for May 30, 1968 because of his alleged failure to have worked three consecutive holidays. Having failed to have filed a "time claim" with the Superintendent within the time limits specified in the Agreement, we must dismiss this claim.
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
LABOR 33IEMBEB'S DISSENT TO AWARD IF359 (DOCKET CL-18609)
(Referee Dugan)
It is improbable that a determination will ever be made to ascertain what reasoning was employed by the Referee and the Carrier Members in reaching the conclusion that "The `time slip' originally submitted by Claimant to the Superintendent did not amount to a `time claim' within the intent and meaning of Rule 29 of the Agreement '' * *" The facts of record that
(1) Claimant wrote "Time Claim" on each time slip (evidenced in the Record as Employes' Exhibit No. 2);
(2) Superintendent acknowledged receipt thereof (Employes' Exhibit No. 3) advising Claimant: "Your claim will be allowed;" and
(3) The Referee and Carrier Members agreed in the Award that: "On the property Claimant put in a claim to the Carr~cr's Superintendent for said pay r + x»
The following question was posed by Referee Stack in Award 12391 as a precedent which should have been applied in this dispute:
In this dispute, the proper procedure was followed, i.e., the claim was presented by the employe in his own behalf to the Carrier officer designated to receive it; he, upon whore such responsibility fell, advised the employe that he was allowing the claim. A Carrier Officer of higher rank, in no way whatever involved in the appeal procedure established by Carrier, usurped the Superintendent's authority and refused to effect payment of the claim. Such an act was intolerable and most certainly in bad faith; further, it is not an issue of first impression before the Board, and I refer to Award 17822 wherein Referee Devine stated:
Awards in the nature of Award 18359 cause cliaos which is, to say the least, not the purpose for which this Board exists. It represents a dangerous trend for the gradual and piece-meal substitution of a code of Board-made rules for the clearly-expressed provisions of the negotiated agreements of the parties. Putting it still another way: Nt-inking both eyes is easier than to think.