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.
A factual dispute in this claim is whether the Claimant was an unassigned Ticket Seller on the Extra List, as alleged by the Organization, or was the holder of regular position BG-209 and thus "not subject to the provisions of the Extra List Agreement," as initially alleged by the Carrier. However, the Carrier at a later point stated it "followed the provisions of the extra board assignment" when it called the Claimant for a vacancy.
Whatever the status of the Claimant, the Board finds examination of the applicable provision of the Extra Board Agreement is sufficient to resolve the matter. The Organization cites Article 4(A) of Appendix E - Extra Lists, which reads as follows:
The record reveals the following: A vacancy existed at the Springfield, Massachusetts, ticket office for 6:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. on June 29, 1989. On June 28, the Claimant was called and accepted the assignment. He subsequently worked the assignment and was paid at the overtime rate.
According to the Carrier's undisputed assertion, another vacancy for the same date and hours subsequently became available at Hartford. An employee junior to the Claimant was called and worked the assignment at the same overtime rate as was paid the Claimant.
The Carrier argues that the Claimant was not considered for the Hartford vacancy, because he was already committed to service in Springfield. The Organization Form 1 Award No. 32268
argues that Claimant, as senior employee, should have been offered his choice between the two openings and would have preferred to exercise his seniority for the Hartford position.
Under the particular circumstances, the Board finds no violation of the seniority rights guaranteed in Article 4(A)(1). The vacancies did have "the same starting time on the same day." The Organization failed to show, however, that the vacancies were "open" simultaneously. Had this been shown, clearly the Claimant should have been offered his choice. The record, however, shows only that one vacancy (Springfield) was "open" and properly filled by the Claimant. When the Hartford vacancy later became "open," the Claimant was already committed to an overtime assignment during the hours of the Hartford vacancy and thus reasonably considered unavailable.
The parties' Submissions refer to Public Law Board No. 4304, Award 47. Suffice it to say the Board finds that Award concerns similar but distinguishable facts and Rules and thus was not considered as instructive here.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.