The claimant was available and would have performed service as a welder helper if the Carrier had so desired.
Claim was timely and properly presented and handled by the Employes at all stages of appeal up to and including the Carrier's highest appellate officer.
The Agreement in effect between the two parties to this dispute dated September 1, 1934, together with supplements, amendments and interpretations thereto is by reference made a part of this Statement of Facts.
On May 23, 1968 Track Laborer Charles Marlow presented a written request with the Division Engineer for consideration when the next welder helper vacancy occurred. The Division Engineer accepted this request and retained it on file for reference and consideration when such a vacancy occurred.
On November 25, 1968, a welder helper took one week of his assigned vacation. His position was blanked and the welder to whom he is assigned continued working during the vacation period without a helper as is the
This: Award cited with approval in Award 16851. See also Award 6946 which states: "We have repeatedly held, and correctly we think, that the assignment of regular relief positions and of work on unassigned days is not a condition prccedent to the staggering of work weeks." See also Award 12788.
Having found that the work was not improperly assigned to the Rate and Bill Clerk position and in concurrence with the many awards of this Board we hold that the Agreement was not violated.
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
The issues are whether the rules require the company to comply with the claimant's written request for assignment to a welder helper's position when a vacancy occurred. If so, the Board must determine whether a vacancy existed during the claim period. Finally, if the answers to both questions are in the affirmative, the Board must determine whether the company filled the "vacancies", thereby damaging the claimant.
OPINION OF BOARD: It is well settled that absences for vacation purposes are not vacancies under the Agreement.
There is no probative evidence establishing that the work performed by the trackmen, which gave rise to the claim, is the exclusive work of welder helper.
The Petitioner has not proved a violation of the Agreement and the 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 respec tively 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