NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number
CL-22885
Joseph A. Sickles, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Baployes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company
STAT$MENT C&' CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-8775)
1. The Carrier violated the effective Clerks' Agreement when
it failed and refused to permit Machine Operator Frank J. Lame to fill the entire
eight
(8)
hour assigaent of the 4:00 P.M* to 12:00 Midnight Machine Operator's
position on January
25, 1978.
2.
The Carrier shall now be required to compensate Machine Operator
Frank J. Lame four (4) hours' pay at the pro rata rate of his position as
Machine Operator for January
25, 1978.
OP33FION OF BOARD: On January
25, 1978,
a regularly assigned employe on the
4:00 P.M* to midnight shift reported off sick, thereby
creating a vacancy. Carrier covered that work vacancy by requiring incumbents
of Machine Operator positions on the two adjacent shifts to work
4
hours each
at the overtime rate. When the normal incumbent of the preceding shift waived
the assignment, the Claimant - incumbent of the following trick - accepted the
overtime assignment. He vas assigned to work
4
hours of the vacancy, but he
vas not permitted to work the portion of the assignment which the incwabent
of the preceding trick had waived. Rather, an Assistant Machine operator
performed the duties regularly assigned to the vacant shift.
The Employee assert a violation of Rule
4
of the Agreement, and
they assert that it requires that the Claimant should have been permitted to
fill the entire
8
hours of assignment concerning the shift in question.
The Carrier denies a violation and refers to the fact that Rule
4
merely sets forth the method of assigning overtime when the Carrier determines
that overtime is to be worked. It points out, however, that it does not require that vacancies be fi
be handled in another manner under the existing rules. Moreover, the Carrier
suggests that a specified Memorandum of Agreement permits the moving up of
other employes to perform work on a given shift.
Award Number 23157
Docket Number CL-22885 Page 2
Our attention has been invited to two awards of this Division
concerning vacancies which occurred prior to the vacancies is question.
In Award No. 22921 (concerning the fall of
1977),
this Division held that
Rule
4
does not require that vacancies be filled for part or all of the
shift if the work can be handled under existing rules, agreements or
practice. Further, it notes that the mentioned Memorandum of Agreessnt
permits an employe from the saw shift to handle the duties of as absent
employe through "move up procedures". Moreover, under the circumstances
of that case, the Board did not find that employes were required to suspend work.
Award 23056 considered certain vacancies as a result of
illness la November and December of
1977.
Consistently, the Board ruled
that Rule
4
did not require that vacancies be filled through overtime for
part oar all of the work shift when that work could be performed in another
manner as per existing rules, agreements or practices, and Rule
7
was considered to be inapplicable.
We find that the cited Awards are pertinent to this dispute.
Accordingly, we will deny the claim.
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 Hoployes 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 denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD -
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
a1v·
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 30th day of January 1981.