NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number CL-22790
George S. Roukis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and
( Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers,
( Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood (GL-8694)
' that:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement when it removed Miss D. L. Cook
from the 11:59 P. M. Bill Clerk position without cause or proper notification.
2. Carrier shall compensate Miss Cook one (1) day's pay at the
time and one-half rate of $51.77 for April 8, 1977, Good Friday Holiday.
(Total amount $77.65)
OPINION OF BOARD: The pivotal question in this dispute is whether or not
Carrier violated Rule 18(a) when it informed Claimant
on April 8, 1977 at about 10:35 P. M. that she would not work the 3rd trick
bill clerk's position that night.
Carrier contends that she was unqualified to remain in that position,
but apprised that she could have worked the 3rd trick yard clerk's position,
while Claimant argues that she was uninformed of the alternative position.
Rule 18(a) which is pertinent to this dispute is referenced as follows;
"(a) Subject to Rule 7, where guaranteed extra boards are
not established or are exhausted, unassigned employees in
the seniority districts as defined in Rule 4, who have, in
accordance with Rule 17, indicated a desire to protect
temporary vacancies or relief work, shall be given first
preference, on a seniority basis, to:"
In our review of this case, we agree with Carrier that it had the
sole right to determine Claimant's fitness and competency, subject to Agreement qualifications and i
bill clerk's position was certainly permissible, when it was firmly
established that she could not handle this job. She needed the assistance
of a qualified off duty employe to perform the position's duties od-April 7,
1977 and this aid was indicative of her inability to fill this position.
Award Number 22887 Page 2
Docket Number CL-22790
Similarly, we do not find from a careful examination of the record
that it was a well established practice on the Rocky Mount Division that
two hours prior to the starting time is the deadline for the exercise of
seniority and/or minimum calling time for vacant positions. Outside of the
District Chairman's September 8, 1978 letter we have no other confirming
proof of this asserted practice.
On the other hand, we do find persuasive merit to Claimant's
contention that Carrier didn't prove that it notified her that she could
work the 11;59 yard clerk's position and support for our conclusion is
found in the language of the Carrier's notation which is quoted hereinafter
and the want of positive verification in the record:
"Miss Cook expecting to work bill clerk- BUT Mr. Robbins
says she will have to set-in on job more before she works
it again (on her own) also she needs to qualify more on
carry-all before working it, so as it stands at this time
she could only pull Burns on 3rd trick yard clerk. Call
man for each job. Both Osterkamp and Burns are expecting
to work."
In fact, a literal reading of the sentence, "Call man for each job" indicates
that Mr. Burns was already pre-selected to work that position. Moreover,
when this statement is construed within the interpretative context of Rule
18(a) (supra) we do not find that she was given preference, on a seniority
basis, consistent with the manifest spirit of this provision.
In Third Division Award 12146 involving a factually different,
but conceptually analogous situation, we ruled in part;
" .. Carrier had a responsibility to make known to him
the position available prior to the sign-out period on
October 12. The preference expressed by Mr. Weiss
for
station service is only suggestive and not mandatory.
Mr. Weiss was entitled to the opportunity of that
assignment."
We believe this holding applicable to this dispute and thus we will sustain
the claim.
Award Number 22887 Page 3
Docket Number CL-22790
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
Claim sustained.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST
Executsve Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 18th day of June 1980.