Form I NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 31581
Docket No. MS-32386
96-3-95-3-260
The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee
James E. Conway when award was rendered.
(Deletha P. Jenkins
PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
(National Railroad Passenger Corporation
( (AMTRAK)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"The Carrier violated the Amtrak-Northeast Corridor Clerk's Rules
Agreement, particularly Rule 3-C-2 (Assignment of Work), Section (a)
which reads: "When a position covered by this Agreement is abolished,
the work previously assigned to such position which remains to be
performed will be assigned in accordance with the following:
(1) To another position or other positions covered by this Agreement when
such other position or other positions remain in existence, at the location
where the work of the abolished position is to be performed.
(2) In the event no position under this Agreement exists at the location
where the work of the abolished position or positions is to be performed,
then it may be performed by an Agent, Yard Master, Foreman, or other
supervisory employee provided that less than four (4) hours work per day
of the abolished position or positions remains to be performed..."
(B) The Carrier violated the Amtrak Northeast Corridor Clerks' Rules
Agreement Rule 1 "Scope" Section (E) which reads: "It is not the intent
of the Corporation to have supervisors perform work which is within the
scope of this Agreement.-Supervisors shall not be used to displace or
replace employees regularly assigned to perform the task, nor will
supervisors be used to negate the provisions of the overtime rules of this
Agreement."
Form 1 Award No. 31581
Page 2 Docket No. MS-32386
96-3-95-3-260
Mr. Hector Frias, Manager - Customer Services, abolished the Extra
Crew Assignment Clerk position formerly held by Deletha Jenkins,
qualified Crew Assignment Clerk, effective June 27, 1994. On June 27,
1994, Crew Base Supervisors Patricia Baylor, Thomas Fant and Ed
Morris, began performing
of
the Extra Board Crew Assignment Clerk
position on an eight hour, and many times, sixteen hour basis. Some
of
the
duties performed were: Preparing OBS daily time sheets and xerox copies,
distributing paychecks to OBS employees, preparing daily running boards,
completed vacation time sheets and corrected payroll information, verified
employee staffing via Crew Management Center, turned monthly
scheduling boards an placed employee's materials (packets) out in the
lobby area. A memo dated May 13, 1994 from Mr. Frias entitled
"Distribution of Crew Base Functions" which clearly shows that the
primary responsibility and persons responsibility responsible for daily
staffing sheets, maintaining extra packets, paychecks distribution and
discrepancies are all listed beside the names of E. Salmon, qualified Crew
Assignment Clerk and D. Jenkins, qualified former Crew Assignment
Clerk Extra, not the Crew Base Supervisors.
Furthermore, it is alleged by Mr. Frias that portions of this work was
performed by Pat. Jackson. Clearly, Mr. Frias's memo states differently
as it outlines Ms. Jackson's duties as ordering uniforms, on board working
tools, monitoring inventory, ordering replacements and tool inventory.
Although Ms. Jackson has the title of Crew Assignment Clerk, she has
never performed any Crew Assignment Clerk duties nor is she qualified
for the position even though she has always received the Crew Assignment
Clerk rate of pay.
Ms. Esta' Salmon-Kaaman, qualified Crew Assignment Clerk, worked the
shift of Monday and Tuesday 11 a.m. to 7 p.m., Wednesday thru Friday 7
a.m. to 3 p.m., relief days Saturday and Sunday. Ms. Deletha Jenkins,
former qualified Crew Assignment Clerk, worked the shift of Wednesday
ahru Friday 1 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Saturday and Sunday 12:30 p.m. to 8 p.m.
with the relief days of Monday and Tuesday. There was no relief clerk for
these two employees. In accordance with the Clerical Agreement of TCU,
during
Ms.
Salmon-Kaaman's absence, Ms. Jenkins, Extra Crew
Assignment Clerk, should have absorbed any and all overtime for the
Form 1 Award No. 31581
Page 3 Docket No. MS-32386
96-3-95-3-260
periods of July 4th to and including July 10, 1994 (Ms. Salmon-Kaaman
on vacation) and August 24, 1994 (Ms. Salmon-Kaaman marked off her
shift).
During this time, supervisor staff performed all the duties the Crew
Assignment Clerk for more than the four (4) hours stipulated in the
Agreement.
After a Claim and Grievance was filed with Mr. Frias and Mr. Jackson,
the position of Extra Crew Assignment Clerk was placed in Bulletin 94-35
and awarded to V.D. Parker in bulletin of 94-36. Ms. Parker began
working in this position on September 14, 1994.
1 am, therefore, requesting that Ms. Jenkins is compensated from the date
of the abolishment (June 27, 1994) to and including September 14, 1994.
Additionally, that Ms. Jenkins receive compensation at the overtime rate
for the period of July 4 thru July 8, 1994 and August 24, 1994.
After the appeal denial by Mr. Hector Frias on September 14, 1994, this
claim was filed with Ms. B. J. Blair, Division Manager of Labor Relations.
On December 15, 1994, this claim was denied. The grievance was filed
with Mr. L. D. Miller, Corporate Manager Labor Relations. On March
23, 1995, the claim was denied."
FINDINGS:
The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds that:
The carrier or carriers and the employee or employees involved in this dispute
are respectively carrier and employee 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.
Form 1 Award No. 31581
Page 4 Docket No. MS-32386
96-3-95-3-260
The crux of this dispute is the Carrier's alleged violation of the Agreement in
abolishing the Extra Crew assignment Clerk position held by Claimant on June 27, 1994
and simultaneously assigning the duties of that position to Crew Base Supervisors
Patricia Baylor, Thomas Fant and Ed Morris instead of to another position covered by
the Agreement. As evidence of the asserted violation, the Organization points to the
Memo dated May 13,1994 in which Hector Frias, Manager-Customer Service, lists the
primary duties
of
the position in question as precisely those undertaken by the above
Crew Base Supervisors after Claimants position was abolished.
The Carrier asserts that the claim is procedurally defective in that it was not
discussed in final appeal conference as required by Rule 7-B-1. The Carrier further
stresses that, on its merits, the work claimed is not reserved exclusively for crew
assignment clerks or other TCU-represented employees; that the evidence as to who
completed certain functions is deficient; and that the Organization in fact has conceded
that Clerk Jackson should have and did perform this work in the absence
of
Clerk
Salmon-Kaaman.
The Board finds, following a review
of
this record and analysis
of
the relevant
Agreement provisions, that the Carrier's position must be sustained. The evidence
indicates that the Claimant initiated her complaints on August 24 and September 1,
1994. Responses to both claims were issued by Mr. Frias on September 14, 1994. On
September 30, 1994, the Claimant took appeal to Division Manager Labor Relations B.
J. Blair.
Conference was held on October 20, 1994, and both claims were denied on
December 15, 1994. By letter of December 20, 1994, Claimant appealed her case to
Director
of
Labor Relations Miller, subsequently indicating on March 13, 1995, that she
did not desire an appeal conference. The claims were then denied by Miller on March
23, 1995, and on May 25, 1995, the Claimant filed her lengthy "Full Statement
of
Claim"
with the Board.
The Carrier has persuasively demonstrated that this claim is expressly grounded
on facts never raised or discussed in conference between the parties. After expressly
waiving her right to a conference discussion with Director
of
Labor Relations Miller, the
Claimant progressed her Statement
of
Claim to the Board in a manner expanded to
include significant additional detail neither encompassed in the original claim nor
discussed during handling on the property. This Board has previously rejected on
Form 1 Award No.
31581
Page 5 Docket No.
MS-32386
96-3-95-3-260
numerous occasions similar attempts to depart from or expand upon claims presented
on the property. Having been presented with well-established precedents of this Board
disfavoring such action, we conclude Claimant's petition to this Board must likewise be
dismissed.
AWARD
Claim dismissed.
ORDER
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that
an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
By Order of Third Division
Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 29th day of August 1996.