(1) Carrier is in violation of the current Agreement dated January 1, 1975, as amended, by failing to timely assign senior applicant to positions advertised, as outlined in Rule 11 thereof.
(2) As a result of this violation, Carrier shall be required to compensate Claimant Tim Langham at the time and one-half rate of the position worked, or the rate of the position of Assistant Transportation Service Agent, Lithonia, Georgia, that the Carrier held him off of improperly, which ever is higher, for the dates of May 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,9 and 10, 1989."
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.
On April 12, 1989, the Carrier posted Advertisement No. 56 for Position No. 152 at Lithonia, Georgia. The position was that of Assistant Transportation Service Agent. The Claimant was the successful applicant for this position and he was awarded it effective May 11, 1989. Thereafter, a claim was filed on grounds that Advertisement No. 56 expired on April 24, 1989, and that in accordance with Rule 11 of the Agreement, assignment to the position ought to have been made by the Carrier no later than April 29, 1989. Relief was requested for the dates of May 1-6 and 8-10, Form 1 Award No. 29490
1989, at the time and one-half rate. It is the position of the Organization that such rate is proper in accordance with Rule 65 of the Agreement.
Given the facts of record the Board concludes that the Carrier was in violation Rule 11 of the Agreement when it did not assign the Claimant to Position No. 152 by April 29, 1989. The parties themselves do not dispute this. The issue which remains is the proper relief to be paid to the Claimant. The position of the Carrier is that appropriate relief is the difference in pay between the rate which the Claimant was receiving on the days in question, and the rate which he would have received had he worked Position No. 152. The position of the organization is that Rule 65 mandates that the Claimant receive time and one-half for the days in question.
A search of the record fails to produce any other argument on the property by the Organization with respect to Rule 65, except to say that time and one-half is justified because the latter Rule applies. The only arguments presented relative to why this Rule ought to apply is found in correspondence by the Carrier to the General Chairman. Apparently, the issue was discussed in more detail in conference, albeit these details are never presented to this Board by the Organization. The Board cannot reasonably frame conclusions on this issue from arguments which are not presented by the moving party to a claim. Arguments on this issue presented in the organization's submission, albeit brief, cannot be used either since arguments and information not proffered in the handling of a case on the property are improperly before this Board (Third Division Awards 22893, 24494, 26257, and 27328). The Board must seek direction, therefore, from the language of Rule 65 itself to determine if the relief requested by the organization is appropriate. The Sidebar Letter states, in unambiguous terms, that Rule 65 "...deals specifically with the use of regularly assigned employees only in cases of emergency." If there was an emergency situation during the time-frame at bar the record does not address any of the circumstances surrounding such. While it is true that the Claimant worked the wrong position for a period of time, the Board cannot reasonably conclude from Rule 65, nor from the record, that penalty for doing so is time and one-half pay. The Board notes, as the Carrier does, that Rule 11 also provides no specifics with respect to sanctions should there be a violation of that Rule. Upon the record as a whole the Board must conclude, therefore, that the difference in rate of pay which the Claimant had received, and the rate he would have received had he worked Position No. 152 on May 1-6 and 8-10, 1989, is the proper relief. The carrier is directed to pay the Claimant accordingly. Form 1 Award No. 29490