The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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.
Claimant was assigned to a Signal Gang which worked ten (10) hours per day, Monday through Thursday, rest days Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The position of Signal Maintainer, Second Shift, Inman Yard, Atlanta, was advertised by Bulletin SS-90-16 on July 18, 1990. Claimant applied for the position and was assigned same on August 1, 1990. The effective date of the assignment was August 13, 1990.
"RULE 30
WORKING HOURS, DAYS AND WORK WEEK
(Revised- -effective September 1, 1949)
On or about August 6, 1990, the Carrier informed Claimant that he was going to a position with work week Thursday through Monday, rest days Tuesday and Wednesday. After enjoying the Saturday and Sunday days off of his old assignment, Claimant reported to work on Monday, August 13, 1990, the last day of the work week of his new assignment, and was duly compensated for that day. Because the following two days, Tuesday August 14 and Wednesday, August 15, 1990, were the assigned rest days of his new work week, he was not compensated for either of those days.
On September 6, 1990, the organization filed a claim contending that "due to the Carrier not assigning Claimant on August 14, 1990, to second Trick position, caused Claimant to lose twenty (20) hours of pay for the month of August."
On November 2, 1990, Carrier's Manager-Personnel 6 Labor Relations denied the claim stating: "Mr Boyce knew a week in advance that he was going to a position which required a change in his rest days; and if he was concerned with losing time due to the change, he could easily have brought this to the attention of his supervisor or myself and we would have gladly worked this matter out for him."
The organization asserts that the Carrier "could have prevented Claimant from losing twenty (20) hours work in the first half of August 1990 if he had been permitted to report to his new assignment on August 10, 1990 instead of being required to report on August 13, 1990." The organization maintains that "the Carrier, as the assigning party, has the responsibility to see that no employee is violated and receives all rights under the Agreement." The Organization further submits that "where a rule states that the Carrier will have control in assigning an employee and, that employee lives up to his responsibility under those provisions, then the Carrier is at fault, and has breached the contract."
The Carrier submits that "the effective date of any assignment is subject to change based on varying factors in connection with a particular job or shift change." Further, the Carrier reasserted that "Mr. Boyce knew a week in advance that he was going to a position which required a change in his rest days; and if he was concerned with losing time due to the change, he could easily have brought this to the attention of his supervisor or myself and we would have gladly worked this matter out for him." The Carrier maintains that it "did not disallow Mr. Boyce from working a 40hour week as claimed." Further, Carri not supported by the Rules cited, and there has been no violation of the Agreement." Form 1 Award No. 29758
The Claimant bid on a position which did not originally list the assigned rest days of Tuesday and Wednesday. However, one week prior to commencing his newly assigned position, Claimant was apprised of the schedule. He took no exception and said nothing about any concerns regarding starting the new assignment on the last day of the workweek. Carrier reasonably points out that if the Claimant was concerned about not "getting enough hours" for the first half of August, he should have notified his supervisor or another Carrier official, in an effort to resolve the situation. Instead, he said nothing and merely waited to file this claim thirty-seven (37) days later, in an effort to recover the "lost wages."
Carrier retains a certain managerial discretion under the Agreement regarding starting dates of assignments, subject to the implicit obligation to exercise that discretion in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner. There is not a shred of evidence that carrier wilfully or intentionally deprived Claimant of any Agreement right or otherwise treated him unfairly. So far as this record shows, if Claimant had spoken up instead of lying in wait to file a claim, Carrier might well have made the effort to accommodate his professed desire to start the new job on August 10, 1990. It is unfortunate that the Claimant did "lose" wages, however, there are some perceived "wrongs" for which no remedy is available. We must find that Carrier did not violate Rule 30 of the Agreement nor abuse its discretion thereunder. Therefore, this claim is denied.