PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND STEAMSHIP

CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND

STATION EMPLOYES


UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

(South-Central District)


STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GLr6894) that:

1. The Carrier violated the then currently effective and controlling agreement between the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes and the Union Pacific Railroad Company when, on Saturday, October 4, 1969 need arose for the performance of revenue billing on seven (7) carloads of limestone, a duty performed exclusively by Mr. B. J. Petty, the incumbent of the position of Cashier at Provo, Utah, during his regular work week; instead, Carrier chose to utilize the services of Relief Clerk who, on the date in question, was relieving the position of Chief Crew Dispatcher Car Clerk in the Provo Yard Office.



EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Claimant, Mr. B. J. Petty, was, at the time the claim arose, in the employ of the Carrier at Provo, Utah, in the capacity of Cashier in the Provo, Utah Freight Station, a position coming under the agreement between the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks and the Carrier, which he held by virtue of his seniority date of August 1, 1919 on Consolidated Clerks' Roster No. 81-1.


On October 4, 1969, need arose for the performance of revenue billing on seven (7) carloads of limestone. On this date, Mr. B. J. Petty, incumbent of the position of Cashier, was observing one of his days of rest. During his regular work week, Mr. Petty, the Cashier at Provo, Utah, exclusively performs all billing at that point.













OPINION OF BOARD: On October 4, 1969, while Claimant was observing one of his rest days, Carrier instructed a relief clerk to bill seven carloads of limestone on revenue billing. The Organization contends that the involved work was the exclusive work of Claimant, and that, therefore, Claimant should have been called in from his rest day to perform this work. Carrier denies this contention, and alleges that "revenue billing" is not a specialized activity, but is one of several duties performed by Claimant; that "revenue billing" has in the past been performed by other ',ban occupants of Claimant's position (Cashier Clerk); and that none of the existing rules confer exclusivity of this work on Claimant's position. In this- dispute, the Organization has the burden of proving by probative evidence that: (1) Claimant had exclusive right to perform the involved work of "revenue billing"; (2) that the Chief Crew Dispatcher-Car Clerk, or his relief, did not perform "revenue billing" incidental to the performance of their normal duties; and (3) that the relief clerk, who was releiving the position of Chief Crew Dispatcher-Car Clerk, was forced to suspend work on his relief position to perform the disputed "revenue billing". The Organization has failed to sustain their burden. Exclusivity of the involved work was never proven by Claimant. There is absence of any proof supporting the naked allegations of the Organization that the Chief Crew Dispatcher-Car Clerk did not at any time perform "revenue billing" in the performance of and incidental to his regularly assigned duties; in fact, the only probative evidence touching on this question is to the contrary (see admission of Claimant found on page 22 of record).


18645

Also, the record is void of any evidence that the Relief Clerk relieving the position of Chief Crew Dispatcher-Car Clerk was forced to suspend work on his position to perform the duty of "revenue billing", in order to absorb overtime. See Award 18455 (Rosenbloom).


Therefore, the Organization having failed to sustain its burden of proof, this Claim will be denied.


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











Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 23rd day of July 1971.

Keenan Printing Co., Chicago, Ill. Printed in U.S.A.
18645 6