RA3xocM
RAILROAD ADJUSBOARD
TEED DIVISION
Edvard L.
Stmtrvj,
Referee
PARTIES TO DISPUTE :
Award Number_- 24500
Docket Number CL-24604
Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steasship Clerks,
Freight Handlers.teas and Station Mxgloyes
'rare-Laiia"
Pacific Limited - Atlantic Region., Lines in
'visiaa and Vermont
STATFMMT OF CLA3M* Claim of the System Ocacaittee of the Brotherhood
(GL-9cQ2) that:
QLAZMM No. 1
1. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties
when',
on April
5.,
1981 it failed to use the pro'-per employe to Perform cork required on the un
aaBigaed rest
day of the second shift Operator position at Brown. Ile Junction,,
Maine.
2. Carrier shall, as a result,, cor-pensate Extra Operator D. J. Eartinp
eight
(8)
hours pay at pro rata rata of second shift Opcsatar position at
Brownville Junction for April-
5j, 1981.
CLAIM ITO. 2
1. Carrier Tlolated the Amt between the parties vhen$ on I-Say 3,
1981..
it failed to use the proper employe to perfarx work
required on
the unassigned rest day of the second shift Operator position at Brownville Junc:ion.,
Male.
2. Carrier shall, as a results coacq>ensate Extra Operator
G. C. Baird., eight
(8)
ho1L"S
pay at pro rata rate of second
shift Operator position at Brownville Junction for May 3., 1987..
OPL'iIOH U? BOARD: On Sunday, April.
6., 1981
and again on Sunday
?ay
3s 1981
the Carrier rerqtsired certain train order work to be dome
at BrwarillR Junction..
mine
between the hours of 1400. (2:00 PX) and. 2200
(10:00 PA) *he= na regularly assigned or relief employee was on duty corking
the second shift. On the two days involved in the
instant claims
the required
train order work was completed by having the first trick operator resin on
duty an extra hour and by calling out '.he `,hind trick operator an hour early.
It is the contention of the Organization that Carrier Area in bat.% of
these instances represented a vio7i'tion of Article
17.5
of the cnrent Agree-:seat between the parties.
Article 1T·5
"When work is required by
tae
Cto be peztox--.ed. on a
day vhieh is sot girt a! any
saaignm=rt., it
may ba perfox-,P--d by
an anilsb7.e extra or unassigned employe vhe will. not athexvise
hate forty ($0) hours of work test reef; in all other cases by
the regular
e·aploye.'
Avax xusber 24500
Docket kuaber
(Sr246o4
Page 2
The Board agrees with the Orga.nisatioa. The record indicates that
the shifts involved were not part of a specific assignment. As such they
were unassigned days and Article
17.5
gives first preference of
work on un
assigned days to e: extra or an unassigned mployee.
fioaxd decision herein is in accord with Decision No. 2 of the Party
Hour Week Cosoittee cited by Petitioner and numerous other Awards of
the Board (See,, for essatplei Third Division Awards
15328; 10713; 10575
inter alia).
The record before the Board shows that the Claimants in both oases
were extra operators who did not have forty (40) hours work in the weeks in
Question] and as sucbj. they should have been called to perform the work and
their claims for a day's pay at pro rata rates should be sustained.
FMMS:
The
Third Division of the AcIjusteent Board, upon the whole record
ands all the evidence, finds aired holds:
That the parties waived oral hearing;
Teat the (,terrier and the Employee involved in this dispute are
respectively Carrier and Employee within the mesming of the Railway Labor
Act, as approved June 21j.
1934;
That this Division of the Adjustuent Board has jurisdiction
over the dispute involved herein; and
That the Agreement vas violated.
Cls_Lms 1 and 2 sustained.
ATTEST:
XATIOXAL RAILROAD AD== BOARD
By Order of Third Division
hey
J. Dover
Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago., Illinois this 3rd day of August
1983·
R
CEI VSEP 7 1983
CIO
go Office -.
