Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD Award No. 27206
THIRD DIVISION Docket No. CL-27138
88-3-86-3-200
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Herbert L. Marx, Jr. when award was rendered.
(Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks,
( Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
(GL-10086) that:
(a) Carrier violated the provisions of the current Clerks' Agreement
at La Junta, Colorado on December 24, 25, 31, 1984 and January 1, 1985, when
it required and/or permitted another employe to perform the work of Position
No. 6008 on said days in which the Carrier had declared the positions blanked,
and
(b) Claimant B. J. Swentzell shall now be compensated for eight (8)
hours' pay at the time and one-half rate of RFO Clerk Position No. 6008 for
December 24, 25, 31, 1984 and January 1, 1985. Said compensation shall be in
addition to any other compensation Claimant may have received for those
dates."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board upon the whole record and
all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this
dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the
Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the
dispute involved herein.
Parties to said dispute waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.
The Claimant holds RFO Clerk Position No. 6008 and was assigned, as
part of a five-day relief schedule, to work on Monday and Tuesday, 3 p.m. to
11 p.m. Claimant's position was blanked on holidays December 24-25 and December 31, 1984, and Januar
Organization alleges that some work normally assigned to Position No. 6008 was
performed by RFO Clerk on Position No. 6112. The work involved was relatively
minimal in quantity, but the Organization contends that the Claimant should
have been permitted to work on these days.
Form 1 Award No. 27206
Page 2 Docket No. CL-27138
88-3-86-3-200
The right of the Carrier to blank a position on a holiday is estab-
lished by Rule 27, which reads as follows:
"Regularly assigned employes shall not have
their working days reduced below five per week,
excepting that such days may be reduced in an
individual's work week in which a designated holiday s) falls on one of his assigned work days, to
the extent of such holidays . . . .
The Organization does not dispute the Carrier's right to blank a
position on a holiday, provided that the work of the employee whose position
is blanked is not performed by other employees. This is established in Rule
32-G which states in part as follows:
"32-G. In working overtime before or after
assigned hours employes regularly assigned to class
of work for which overtime is necessary shall be
given preference, i.e.:
(1) Occupant of position to have
rights to overtime work on his position . . . .
NOTE: This principle shall also apply to
working on holidays."
This principle is supported by numerous Awards cited by the Organization. As stated in Third Div
when no one works it."
The Carrier's contention is that the two positions involved herein,
(Nos. 6008 and 6112) are both bulletined as RFO Clerks, and that the work performed on the four holi
duties. Thus, the work is properly performed by the employee in either RFO
Clerk position, according to the Carrier.
In support of its position that the work involved belonged only to
Position No. 6008, the Organization submitted descriptions of the work involved in both positions. T
completion of the claims handling procedure on the property. The Carrier
properly objects to consideration of these descriptions by the Board, based
both on their untimeliness and the fact that they do not necessarily describe
the duties as performed one year earlier.
The Board finds that these descriptions are not a timely part of the
dispute. Nevertheless, review of such descriptions does show that work involved is in fact performed
duty and while the occupant in Position No. 6008 is otherwise engaged.
Form 1 Award No. 27206
Page 3 Docket No. CL-27138
88-3-86-3-200
The particular facts in this dispute do not lead to the conclusion
that the work cited was improperly performed by the RFO Clerk who was on duty.
This is not a case of work performed by an employee in another classification
or by a supervisor, as is true in instances in many other cited Awards. In
sum, one RFO Clerk remained on duty on the holidays, while the other RFO Clerk
(the Claimant) was relieved for the holidays. The work performed was in the
RFO Clerk classification, both positions in question having been identically
bulletined. As stated in Public Law Board No. 843, Award No. 37:
"There can be no question that unless the
Carrier has restricted itself by Agreement, the
Carrier can combine the work to be performed by
regularly assigned employes, whereas in the dispute
before us, the employes were of the same class and
performed the same type of work at the same location.
A W A R D
Claim denied.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Attest:
Nancy J. - Executive Secretary
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 20th day of July 1988.