Award No. 18621
Docket No. CL-18848







PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP

CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND

STATION EMPLOYES




STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-6790) that:





EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Mr. R. D. Coleman, Claimant listed in Item 2 in this case, is regularly assigned to position of Porter, at the Texas and Pacific Railway Company's Arlington, Texas Freight Station, assigned days Monday through Friday, rest days Saturday and Sunday, having attained this position through the exercise of his seniority.


The Carrier, by bulletin dated August 20, 1968, advertised a Relief Yard Clerk at the rate of $25.10 per day, wherein the duties of service yard engines and cabooses on Saturday and Sunday (emphasis added). The Organization protested this assignment on the grounds that the Carrier was circumventing the Agreement by requiring a Group 1 employe to perform the rest day duties of a Group 2 employe.

8. The claim was progressed to the highest designated officer authorized to handle these matters, Mr. 0. B. Sayers, Director of Labor Relations, who declined the claim as follows under date of August 14, 1969:















OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant is regularly assigned to position of Porter, at the Texas and Pacific Railway Company's Arlington Texas Freight Station. Claimant is a Group 2 clerical employe assigned days Monday through Friday with Saturday and Sunday rest days.

Carrier issued bulletin dated August 20, 1968 advertising a Relief Yard Clerk (Group employe) wherein the duties consisted of in part "service yard engines and cabooses on Saturday and Sunday." The employes pro-

18621 4

tested this assignment on the grounds that Carrier was circumventing the Agreement by requiring a Group 1 employe to perform the rest day duties of a Group 2 employe. It is uncontroverted that commencing with the assignment of this position, Carrier required Group I Yard Clerk to perform the duties of servicing yard engines and cabooses on Saturday and Sunday only. These duties are regularly performed by Claimant Monday through Friday. Claim was filed on behalf of Claimant on account he was not called to perform this work on Saturdays and Sundays.


Carrier, ab initio, raises a procedural issue, alleging that the claim is barred by the Time Limit Rule since the claim was not filed until January 4, 1969, while the date of the alleged violation is August, 1968. We disagree. The claim, in our opinion, is based on a continuing violation, and thus not barred by the Time Limit Rule. We shall proceed to the merits of the claim.


Rule 1 classifies the employes covered by the agreement into three groups. Group 1 consists of employes who regularly devote not less than four hours per day to specified clerical duties. while Group 2 consists of other office, station and storehouse employes, including Claimant.


It is well established by numerous Awards of the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board that the fact the employes under a Scope Rule such as that in the applicable agreement are divided into three groups for classification and maintenance of seniority rosters is no bar to assigning Group 2 work to Group 1 employes. (See Award Nos. 7167, 2011, 14050, and SBA No. 564, Award No. 17.) The Scope Rule in question is a general one. It merely classifies employes on the basis of preponderating work. Neither the Scope Rule nor any other Rule in the Agreement allocates any particular work to Group 2 employes. It does not give all clerical work to Group 1 and all non-clerical work to Group 2 and 3. Neither does the Agreement preclude Group 1 employes from performing non-clerical work, nor prevent Group 2 and 3 employes from performing clerical work. In the absence of a contractual prohibition, Carrier was within its rights in permitting Group 1 employes to perform Group 2 duties on the rest days of the Group 2 employe.


Nor is Rule 30 (f) (Work on Unassigned Days) applicable here since Saturday and Sunday were days which were part of the Yard Clerk's assignment.


    Consequently, the Areement was not violated.


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 has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and


18621 5
    That the Agreement was not violated.


                  AWARD

    Claim denied.


              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD By Order of THIRD DIVISION


              ATTEST: E. A. Killeen

              Executive Secretary

Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of June 1971.

Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U. S. A.
18621 6