STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Division BRAC, on the Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company, TC-5746, that:
The dispute involved herein is predicated on various provisions of the collective bargaining agreement entered into by the parties effective January 1, 1953. Employes submitted the claim to the proper officers of the Carrier, at the time and in the usual manner of handling, as required by agreement rules and applicable provisions of law. The claim was discussed in conference between representatives of the parties on November 11, 1969.
The controversy arose on January 6, 1969, when the Carrier failed to allow the claimant to work at least four additional days on the position of Agent-operator at Saginaw, Minnesota. Beginning with January 4, 1969, the position was temporarily vacant. On that date, claimant was the senior, available, extra man. Ile was then placed on the position, but on January 6, 1969, Carrier required his displacement by a senior extra employe.
Employes contended in the handling on the property, and now contend before the Board, that certain provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement were violated. (These provisions are specifically set out in Section (d) below, Rules Relied On.) Carrier ultimately limited its resistance to the claim by contending that the claimant was not qualified to perform the duties of the position on the four claim dates.
ARTICLE 21
Failure to Qualify
A copy of the correspondence involved in the handling of the claim in this case is attached and marked as Carrier's "Exhibit A."
OPINION OF BOARD: The regular occupant of the Agent position at Saginaw, Minnesota, at about 11:30 A. M. Saturday, January 4, 1969, reported ill and unable to continue work. lie asked to be relieved until he reported ready for work. The position in question is a six-day position with Sunday as rest day.
Carrier could not immediately locate the senior qualified extra employe, and notified Claimant Olson, a junior extra employe, to protect the, position for the remainder of the one day, January 4. Later, the senior extra man was contacted and assigned to the vacancy beginning Monday, January 6.
Claimant Olson contends that under Article 18(e) of the Agreement he was entitled to remain on the vacancy for five days before the Carrier could displace him with a senior extra employe.
ONon's claim was declined and the handling of the resulting dispute generated considerable debate, much of which seems to be irrelevant.
A careful study of the entire record convinces us that this is not a case for application of Article 18(e). There was no exercise of seniority. Rather, we think, there was an assignment of the first available extra employe for one day to meet an emergency. We do not believe such an emergency assignment was intended to give the employe any rights beyond the duration of the emergency. Therefore, the Carrier did not mishandle the situation, and Olson's Claim cannot be sustained.
Obviously, this decision is confined to the facts of this case and is not to be considered as a precedent in other cases where the facts may be different.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds: