NATICM RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-22196
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
(. Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
( Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southeastern Demurrage and Storage Bureau
- I
ST-4TEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
GL-8404, that:
"(a) The Bureau has violated the Rules Agreement, particularly
Rues 5 and 6 by failure to post for bid a vacated position and therefore prohibiting the Claimant fr
thereupon.
(b) Claimant G. H. Waldo should be paid at his respective
regular basic rate of pay at the straight time rate for a day's pay
for each of the regular assigned days of Ms. J. A. Mason's former
position, commencing February 2, 1976 and continuing until this dispute
is settled."
OPINION
OF BOARD: A demurrage clerk position was bulletined January 20,
1976. Bids closed January 25, 1976. There were two
applicants, J. A. Mason and J. R. Fleming. Fleming was junior to Mason
in seniority. The demurrage clerk position was awarded to Fleming. However, in reality, the Carrier
position and assigned her to the demurrage clerk position awarded to j
Fleming. Fleming was assigned to the duties of the position formerly
held by Mason. In other words, the Carrier had Flexing and Mason switch
positions.
The Organization contends that according to the rules, Mason
should have been awarded the bulletined position. They also contend
that her former position should have been bulletined, and because it
was not, the Claimant, Waldo, was prohibited from exercising his
seniority rights to the Mason position. They further contend the
appropriate remedy is to award Waldo pay for each day until he is
allowed to bid on the former position of Mason.
i
The Carrier contends that the procedure they followed was in
accordance with past practice relative to bulletins. It is also urged
that Waldo was oa a medical leave of absence and could not submit a bid
and that Waldo did not lose any wages because he was not available- for
service.
Award Number 22214 Page 2
Docket Number CL-22196
Relative to the contention of the Carrier concerning past
practice, we must note that Rule
6
is clear and unambiguous and even if
past practice had been established, it does not nullify. the clear
requirements of Rule
6.
It is apparent the Carrier violated the
Agreement when they failed to bulletin the former position of Mason.
We also must dismiss the argument of the Carrier that Waldo
could not submit a bid on a position while on a leave of absence. The
reccrd reflects that the Carrier invited Claimant to exercise his
seniority after his position was abolished while he was on leave of
absence. It is clear there is a practice to allow employes to use
seniority rights while on a leave of absence.
Waldo did have the right to bid on the former position of
Mason, had it been bulletined. However, equally clear in the record
is that Waldo was not in a position to work the former position of Mason
even if it had been bulletined. He was on a medical leave of absence.
Waldo did not bid on the Mason position when it was properly bulletined
in August. In view thereof, his claim for compensation will be denied.
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 Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and ::- _-
That the Agreement was violated.
A W A R D
's\
c<
Part (a) sustained; Part (b) denied.
`~ .' ,-.
.-.:
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
~'~ , ./Q~
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 15th day of November 1973.