(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes PARTIES TO DISPUTE:




(1) Carrier violated the Rules of the Clerks' Agreement on February 16, 1976 (Washington's Birthday), particularly Rule 34, when it failed to utilize Mr. T. E. Mc'lgggart to perform the work necessary on his position, and instead had such work performed by Clerk M. Anderson, and

(2) That Mr. T. E. McTaggart now be allowed five hours and twenty minutes pay at the rate of time and one-half for February 16, 1976 account not properly called to perform service on his regular position on this holiday.

OPINION OF BOARD: Claimant, a car control clerk in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, was assigned to Position No. 143. On Washington's Birthday, Positions No. 143 and 173 were combined, as allowed by contract. According to that contract, specifically Rule 34 (F)2, when positions are combined, work on a holiday will be offered to the most senior employe affected by the combined positions.

In the instant case, while the incumbent is job 173 was more senior than claimant, he was not available for work, being on vacation. Claimant was not offered the opportunity to fill the combined position, because, according to perform the duties of Bosition 173. He was only qualified to perform the duties of job 143 and no other clerk's job at the lotion.

Carrier therefore called a storekeeper from the storehouse to cover the job on the holiday. His job had been blanked and was not combined with another position. He was qualified to perform the work of the combined position. Claimant, upon learning that his job was worked on the holiday, filed a grievance that was not resolved on the property and is therefore now before this Board for resolution.



The issue in this case is, was the Carrier required, to call claimant to cover the combined positions on the holiday if he was not qualified to perform the work? The answer to that question is obviously no. Carrier stated at the outset of this claim that claimant was not qualified. At no time in the handling of this case on the property or in its ex parts submission did the Organization challenge this statement or even disagree with it. This Board can only conclude that claimant could not do the work in question and that Carrier was correct in not placing him on a job that he could not perform.

The question of whether Storekeeper Anderson should have been called to fill the job and whether Carrier had the right to combine a position in such a way so that one or more incumbents were not qualified to fill the combined position is not central to this claim and will not be addressed by the Board, at this time.

        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 aiployes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

That this Division of the Adjustment Board has juric8lotion over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                    A W A R D


        Claim denied.


                              NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUS24ENT HOARD

                              By Order of Third Division


ATTEST:
          Executi

                a --

              ve seem-a4


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 14th day of November 1980.