NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION Docket Number SG-24467
Martin F. Scheinman, Referee
(Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Western Lines)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen on the Southern Pacific Transportation
Company (Western Lines):
On behalf of Leading Signalman L. E. Woodford for eight and one-third
hours' time and one-half rate of pay, under Rule 72, account Carrier used a
junior employee for vacation relief November 24 to December 5, 1980, in violation
of Section 12(b) of the Vacation Agreement, and the junior employee worked overtime
during that period for which he received eight and one-third hours' overtime pay.
(Carrier file: SIG 148-3211
OPINION OF BOARD: From November 24 to December 5, 1980, Carrier granted Signal
Maintainer E. 0. Rosebure vacation time off at its Colton
East yard in Colton, California. During that period, Carrier used Lead Signalman
G. Readman to relieve the Signal Maintainer.
The Organization contends that Carrier should have used Claimant L. E.
Wood ford to fill the vacancy, since he is senior to Signalman Readman. In the
Organization's view, Carrier's failure to use the senior employee violates Rule 21(b)
of the Agreement. That rule reads:'
"(b) As employees exercising their vacation privileges will be
compensated under this agreement during their absence on vacation,
retaining their other rights as if they had remained at cork, such
absences from duty will not constitute 'vacancies' in their positions
under any agreement. When the position of a vacationing employee
is to to filled and regular relief employee is not utilized, effort
will be made to observe the principle of seniority." (Emphasis supplied.)
In support of its claim, the Organization points out that Claimant is
headquartered at Colton. However, Signalman Readman, the junior employee, is
head quartered some twenty-five miles away from Colton. Thus, the Organization
suggests that Carrier did not make an effort to observe the principle of seniority
since the senior qualified employee was more readily available than the junior
employee.
In addition, the Organization suggests that another reason may have
caused Carrier to use Signalman G. Readman instead of Claimant as vacation
relief in late 1980.
The Organization points out that Signalman G. Readman is the nephew
of Signal Manager C. J. Readman. Therefore, the organization suggests that
nepotism, instead of service requirements, resulted in Carrier's actions here.
Award Number 24877
Docket Number SG-24467 Page 2
Carrier, on the other hand, insists that it did rot violate the Agreement
under the facts of this case. Carrier points out that Signal Maintainer Rosebure
was under the supervision of the Tucson Regional Engineer. Lead Signalman
Readman, who replaced Signal Maintainer Rosebure was under the same regional
supervision. However, Claimant was under the supervision of the Los Angeles
Regional Engineer. Thus, Carrier reasons that the Tucson Regional Engineer had
the right to give preference to an available employee under his supervision, as
opposed to an employee under the supervision of the Los Angeles Regional Engineer.
This is so because, in Carrier's view, Claimant's availability for vacation
relief would be subject to the discretion of the Los Angeles Regional Engineer.
As such, Carrier concludes that it exercised sound managerial prerogatives in
selecting Lead Signalman G. Readman over Claimant to fill vacation relief in
November and December 1980.
We believe that this issue has been dealt with in a previous claim
involving these same two parties under substantially similar circumstances. In
this Board's Award No. 24283, we concluded that Carrier did make an effort to
observe the principle of seniority when it used Signal Maintainer Readman who
was junior to Claimant to fill vacation relief in March 1980. Nothing in this
record convinces us that a different result is warranted here. Thus, under the
time honored principle of stare decisis, we shall adhere to our finding in that
case. Accordingly, the claim is denied.
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 denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
ATTEST:
Nancy J., ver- Executive Secretary
v
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 28th day of June, 1984
