BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY, AIRLINE AND
STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS,
EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
(Formerly Transportation-Comnntuiication Division BRAC)
STATEMENT Op' CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Transportation-Communication Division, ERAC, on the Penn Central (New Haven District), T-C 5796, that:
The Agreement between the parties effective September 1, 1949 as amended and supplemented, is available to your Board and by this reference is made a part hereof. The claim was handled in the proper manner on the property, appealed to the highest Gaxriex officer designtaed to handle claims and grievances and declined. Conference was held November 20, 1969.
The dispute arose because Carrier after compensating Claimant for travel time between Branchville and Springdale, Connecticut later recovered the amount ($395.06) from Claimant in payroll deductions.
Carrier in denying the claim gave as the reason; since Claimant did not actually travel to and from the points in question he was not entitled to the travel time.
Employer contend Claimant in being awarded the position at Springdale was to be considered as being on that position and entitled to all benefits attached to that position, this included the travel time.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant 1T. A_ Ceccarelli had a regular assignment as Agent-Operator at Branchville, Connecticut. He bid in and was awarded anothar Agent-Operator's position at Springdale, Connecticut. The Claimant was not transferred to his bid=in assignment within twenty five days from the date of the bulletin and he asked for and was given travel time from Branchville to Springdale from December 2, 1968, to January 28, 1969. Later Caxriar deducted from Claimant's pay the travel time payment which had been made to him on the groud that no actual travel time had been consumed.
Article 15(b) .requires that the successful bidder for a vacancy shall be placed thereon within twenty-five days from the date of the bulletin. Article 15(b) reads in part as follows:
"* * -" The successful applicant for the position will be promptly notified and within twenty-five days from date of bulletin the transfer will be made. "' * *"
The above language is cleanly mandatory and binding upon Carrier. It is qualified only by the language in Article 29 which provides that "regularly assigned employer will not ba required to vrorh at other than their regular positions, except in cases of emergency-=" (Emphasis ours.)
If there was no emergency and Claimant was required to work an a position other than his regular position, Carrier would be in violation of Rule 15(b) and Claimant would be entitled to compensation for those losses which flow from the violation. We then reach the question whether absent the violation Claimant would have traveled every day bztween Branchville and Springdale. The record is not very helpful on the point, Moreover, the Organization in its ex paste submission contends that such travel would have taken places, absent the violation, while Carrier in its rebuttal contends that had Claimant been transferred to Springdale there would be no traced pay involved.
In view of the foregoing, if we assume there was no emergency, the record is so .inconclusiva on the point of whether Claimant would have enjoyed travel pay, absent a rule violation, tixah we cannot make a sustaining award under such assumption.
If we consider the facts in this ease under the assumption that there was an emergency, then the claim would have to be considered in the light of Article 29 which reads as follows:
"Regularly assigned employes will not be required to work at other than their regular positions, except in cases of emergk.ncy. When required to work temporarily at other than their regular positions, employer shall be paid at tine higher rate of the two positions and in addition shall be allowed any actual necessary expenses incurred and straight time rate for time consumed in traveling and waiting enroutn to and from such temporary assignment, In no event will the employe receive less pay than he would have received had he not been used in such emergency service."
Carrier contends that under the language of Article 29 regular employer are allowed the straight time rate for time consumed in traveling and that the inclusion of the word "consumed" can only mean the time actually spent traveling and waiting. Consequently Carrier argues that since Claimant did not actually travel between Springdale and Branchville he may not collect travel pay.
While it is true that Article 23 does refer to "time consumed in traveling," it also provides: "In no event ,will the employe receive less pay than ha would have received had he not been used in such emergency." We think this language is broad enough in scope to include in its meaning that in no event should a employe receive less in travel pay than he would have received absent the emergency.
This brings us again to the question whether, if he had been transferred to Springdale, Claimant would have. traveled every day between Branchville and Springdale. We must answer the question by pointing out that the record was of little help on the point and that Carrier. and the Organization took varying positions in their argument. Had the Employee been able to clea~ly establish that, if transferred, Claimant would have traveled each day between Branchville and Springdale, the claim would have been sustained. Because of the lack of adequate information on the point in the record, the claim must be denied.
FINDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds arid holds:
That the Carrier and the Employees. involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved dune 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and