NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number MS-22942
Richard R. Kasher, Referee
(J. 0. Hudgins
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Seacoast Transportation Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of J. 0. Hudgins:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement when it failed to call Truck
operator J. 0. Hudgins from the extra board to protect extra work.
2. Carrier violated the Agreement when it called H. C. Belk
(regularly assigned) to protect extra work before the extra board was
exhausted.
3. Carrier further violated the Agreement when it called H. C. Belk,
not having hours available to protect his assignment after protecting this
extra work.
4. Carrier acted arbitrarily when it blanked the assignment
normally assigned to Mr. Belk.
As a consequence thereof, Carrier shall;
Compensate J. 0. Hudgins for nine (9) hours at the
straight time rate for Mr. Belk's position."
OPINION OF BOARD; The Claimant, Mr. J. 0. Hudgins, is employed as a Truck
Operator by Seacoast Transportation Company, a subsidiary
of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. On June 25, 1976, the date of the
incident giving rise to the claim before this Board, Claimant was assigned to
the Truck Operators' Extra Board at Orlando, Florida, and w$s subject to call
Monday through Sunday. As an extra board employe, he was called for assignments in his turn but was
on any given day.
On June 25, 1976, Truck Operator H. C. Belk was regularly assigned
to position number 116 at Orlando. The hours for that position were 8;00 a. m.
to 6:00 p .m., including one hour for lunch. Mr. Belk was called in at 5:30 a.m.,
June 25, 1976, and worked continuously with his regularly assigned hours.
The Organization filed a claim on August 16, 1976, alleging that-the Carrier
violated the Agreement by: (1) failing to call the Claimant from the extra
board to protect extra work; (2) calling operator H. C. Belk to protect
Award Number 22989 Page 2
Docket Number MS-22942
extra work before the extra board was exhausted; and (3) calling
H. C.
Belk,
who did not have hours available to protect his assignment, after protecting
his extra work.
The claim must be dismissed. It should first be noted that the
claim is not supported by any dates, times or rules of the alleged violation.
The Claimant's submission consisted of a letter dated January 31, 1979,
addressed to the Executive Secretary, Third Division, National Railroad
Adjustment Board, stating his claim and intention to file an Ex Parts
Submission.
The Carrier's position was that operator
H. C.
Belk was called
and compensated in accordance with the Agreement. Mr. Belk was paid for
nine (9) hours at the straight time rate and two and one-half (2'k) hours at
the overtime rate for his services on June 25, 1976. The Carrier argued
that Belk was properly paid pursuant to Rule 13 (c) of a Memorandum Agreement
dated July 14, 1970, which reads as follows:
"Rule 13
(c) Except as otherwise provided in these rules, time
in excess of nine (9) hours, exclusive of the meal period,
on any day, will be considered overtime and paid on the
actual minute basis at the rate of time and one-half."
The Carrier also asserted that position number 116 was not blanked
on June 25, 1976, and that the work for which Mr. Belk was called to perform
did not fall within any of the categories listed in Rule 8 - Extra Work -
which reads in pertinent part as follows;
"Rule 8 -- Extra Work
(b) Extra work is construed to be filling of a$cignments
of employees on vacation, short vacancies, new assignments
or vacancies pending assignment, terminal work not performed by employees on regular assignments, an
work."
Noting the Claimant's failure to cite any date, time, or specific
contractual violation, or to refute the Carrier's position, this Board
dismisses the claim.
Award Number 22989 Page 3
Docket Number MS-22942
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 not violated.
A W A R D
Claim dismidsed.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of September 1980.