NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

THIRD DIVISION

Paul C. Dugan, Referee

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,

FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES

LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY

(a) Carrier violated and continues to violate the Agreement between the parties effective May 1, 1955, as revised, when, by unilateral action it established and maintains, within the New York District, a separate extra list for Group 1 (Clerical employes at its' Perth Amboy Freight Station and unilaterally designates a junior furloughed employ, from the New York District (Mrs. B. Young) as the extra clerk entitled to work at Perth Amboy, with prior rights to all extra work, vacation relief, etc_ at that point, thereby depriving senior furloughed employes in tha New York District of their contract rights to perform extra work at Perth Amboy; and,

(b) Carrion further violated and continues to violate the Agreement when it denies Mrs. B. Young the right to perform extra work as senior available furloughed employe throughout the New York District, and,

(c) Carrier shall, because of such violations, be required to pay the senior available; furloughed employe (H. Cebula, T. Bowen or successor) a days pay at the rate of the position filled by Mrs. B. Young for each and every day that Mrs. Young performs extra work at Perth Amboy from June 5, 1963 forward until the violation is corrected; and,

(d) Carrier shall be required to pay Mrs. B. Young a days pay at the rate of the position filled by any junior furloughed employe on the New York District; and,

(e) In addition to the "days pay" in items (c) and (d) Carrier shall also be required to allow the senior available employe the mileage and travel time allowances applicable had they each been properly called for service.

in the District for the Extra List," and faillng to do this Arbitration Avard No. 298 is thereby violated. Section C, 1I A of Award No. 298 reads as follows:

"For employes, other than those serving in regular positions or in regular assigned relief positions, the Carr·i·:r shall designate a headquarters point for each employe."

fhe above quoted Section is precise, clear and unambiguous and does not support the organization's contention that only one headquarter's point can be established.

The Employee' maintain that only one headquarters fox the extra list if the New York Seniority District can be established under the provision of Award Nn. 298, however, the foregoing quoted provision d~oes not restrict or prohibit the carrier from establishing a headquarters point for each and every employe on the extra list, and nothing tirarein requires the same headquarters point for such employes.

Carrier established ,headquarters for the four employes shown in the District Chairman's letter to Supervisor-Stations dated June 27, 1968 as follows:

1. Barbara J. Mattarochio - Perth Amboy, N. J. (Carrier's Exhibit "G")

2. Mary Antas - Newark, N. J. (Carrier's Exhibit "H")

.,. Thou as Ilo;v;n--Newark, N. J. (Carrier's Exhibit "1'·)

-1. Helen Cehohl-Newruk, N. J. (Carrier's Exhibit "J")

and in accordance with thu provisions of Award No. 298. There was no violation of any rule or agreement or of Award No. 298.

fE.dilhits not eptod:i,, 1.)

OPINION OF BOARD: At the outset Carrier raises a procedural defect alleging that the Organization failed to comply with the requireanents of the August '71, 1 tr54 Noi;ional Agreement (Rule :>;3 of the Agreement) because the claim as initially filed failed to identify Claimants and failed to specify dates involved; and that the part of claims, namely: -and these claims to run until such time as this violation on the part ~of the Oarri··r is corrected" was untimely and inrpeop.,rly presel,ted, us original claims ale required to be presented and/or amended at the initial step of handling, and the amendment was too vague for consideration.

The record discloses that on June 27, 1968 the Organization's District Chairman, William A. C~i--:r, ^7hd claims "for :any Employes who have been, and who are, adversely aflected due to this violation."

Carrier's Supervisor Slaticns, .1. C. 1fyers, replied to Mr. Criger by letter, dated August 20, 1968, in part as follows:

"Your letter dated .Tune 27, c,·ceived July 1, 1968.

First-- 1Ylmt are the claim, you are submitting? How is the office to know- who you are matting claim for, whereby we are in position to laopealy check and handle a claim. Rule 3:3 is clear, all claims must b;· pmscntod on behalf of the employs; involved, this you have failed to do. You have not presented the necessary evidence and information needed to properly present this claim for censideration. Th^ref,rr··, as this claim has not been pueseitd as required by the rule it is denied for that reason."

Thereafter, General Chairman. George C. Baier, by letter dated October 16, 1968 to Carrier's Sucerlntendent of Stations, J. C. DeLonzis, advised that the Employes involved in these clams are M. Antas, H. Cebula, T. Bowen, and B. Mattarachio, and concluded by saying: "we are asking that a check of the payrolls be made in order to ascertain what each of these Employes are entitled to, and these claims to run until sueh time as this violation on the part of the Carrier is corrected."

This Board was confronted with a somewhat similar situation in Award No. 18640, involving thrse same parties to this dispute, wherein it states:

"we now look to the alleged failure of the Employes to include in the claim, as filed, the names of the claimants and the dates on which the violation occurred. The claim filed by the District Chairman stated, in part, `Claim is being submitted for any and all employes affected due ~to this violation, from December 3, 1966, up to and including such time as this violation is corrected. Employes affected can be determined by a check of the payroll at Pier 46, N. Y. These claims are in addition to any other claims pending.' Clerly, the claim as pres·_~nted is deficient and does not meet the requirements of Rule 33, which states that the claim `must' be presented on behalf of the employes involved. This can only mean that the claimant or claimants must be named and identified. There are no ambiguities in the language of the rule as numerous awards have so held."

The Board in said Award No. 13640 went on to conclude that Rule 33 of the Agreement was not mat for it requires that such information (naming of claimant-date of claim) b:· part of the initial claim and be in writing.

Finding that the Organization failed to comply with the requirements of the August 21, 196-1 Agreement (Rule 3 3 of the Agreement), we must dismiss this claim.

FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Boaid, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds an,i holds:

That the parties waived oral hearing;

That the Carrier and th= Employcs 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

That the Agreenrmt was not violated.

AWARD Claim dismissed.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

By Order of THIRD DIVISION

ATTEST: E. A. Killeen

Executive Secretary