NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number
a,-23043
Rodney E. Dennis, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company
3TATEMEENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-8821) that:
(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.
Award Number 23044 page 2
Docket Number CL-23043
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.