NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-20462
Frederick R. Blackwell, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
( Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and
( Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Maine Central Railroad Company
( Portland Terminal Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-7413) that:
1. Carrier violated Rules 3(b), and 16(e) among others of the
current Clerks Agreement as amended, when it assigned a school teacher,
a non-bona-fide employee to perform unassigned clerical rest day work on
its first trick checkers position at Waterville, Maine.
2. Carrier shall be required to compensate the regular employee,
Mr. Arthur E. Ladd, three (3) days pay at punitive rates for said violations covering Saturday, July
August 12, 1972.
OPINION OF BOARD: For the five years preceding this claim, Mr. Roger St.
Amend, who worked as a teacher during the regular school
year, was employed by Carrier to perform vacation relief during the summer
at Waterville, Maine. In the summer of 1972, he was rehired to cover a
clerical vacation vacancy from June 19 through June 30, 1972. After working
the vacation relief, he worked a one-day vacancy on July 6, 1972 on the Bill
Rack Clerk's Position and was then used to work the First Trick Checker Posi
tion at Waterville on three separate rest days of that position (July 22, 23,
and August 12, 1972). The regular Checker Clerk claims punitive pay for the
rest day work performed by Mr. St. Amand on the theory that Mr. St. Amend
was not a bona-fide employee when the disputed work was performed. The issue
thus drawn is whether Mr. St. Amand was an outsider or a bona-fide employee
of the Carrier when he performed the tag-end rest day work on the claim dates
of July 22, 23, and August 12, 1972.
A great number of prior Awards support the Employees' position that,
although a new employee can be hired to perform vacation relief work, he cannot perform tag-end rest
60 days of vacation relief work. Award Nos. 5558, 5620, 15802, 16560, et al.
The Carrier expresses awareness of these awards but argues that -
I
Award Number 20595 Page 2
Docket Number CL-20462
"...
These same Awards hold that a person hired to
cover temporary vacancy or a vacation vacancy before
being used to cover tag-end rest day work established
a legitimate employment relationship and such person
may thereafter be used to cover tag-end rest day
work ...."(Emphasis added)
The Carrier's view of the prior Awards appears to be that it is irrelevant
whether a person works a "temporary vacancy" or a "vacation vacancy" because,
in
either case, such person can thereafter perform tag-end rest day
work. We agree in part and disagree in part. We think the prior Awards
make it clear that a person who covers a "vacation vacancy" (i.e., who perform vacation relief work)
does not acquire a status from such work which permits him to be thereafter
used to perform tag-end rest day work. On the other hand, the prior Awards
appear to impose no restriction on the performance of tag-end rest day work
by a person who previously performed work on a "temporary vacancy" and who
established seniority by reason of working such "temporary vacancy". In
the facts of the instant dispute, Mr. St. Amend was not rendered a bona-fide
employee who could perform tag-end rest day work by reason of his working
vacation relief from June 19 through June 30, 1972, the reason being that he
acquired no seniority from this work. However, there is no dispute that Mr.
St. Amend covered a one-day vacancy on July 6, 1972 on the Bill Rack's Position; as a result of this
thus he had an established seniority date when he performed the tag-end
rest day work on July 22, 23, and August 12, 1972. We are aware that he had
worked as a school teacher during the regular school term for several years
preceding this dispute. Prior Awards indicate, however, that such outside
employment is not necessarily a controlling factor and we conclude in the
instant facts that the decisive fact is that Mr. St. Amend held a seniority
date under the provisions of the applicable agreement when he performed the
tag-end rest day work. We shall therefore deny the claim.
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
A'ct,; as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
~w ~
Award Number 20595 page 3
Docket Number CL-20462
That the Agreement was not violated.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST;
ecutive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 31st day of January 1975.
--I