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 claim, initiated on May 30, 1996, avers that Carrier violated both the Scope and Overtime Rules when it permitted Buffalo Terminal Supervisor F. C. Loft to perform the clerical duty of calling Clerks to fill a vacancy on May 25, 1996 between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. The record reflects that Claimant's prior position had been abolished, and she was not scheduled to displace into her new position until 9:00 P.M. on May 25, 1996.
The on-property handling of this matter focused on the Organization's contention that the calling-in of Clerks to fill a vacancy is work exclusively reserved to Clerks under the Scope Rule, and should have been performed by a Clerk, rather than a Carrier Officer. Before the Board the Organization added the argument that Rule 5(f) governs Claimant's entitlement to have been called for the work in question, even if she were an unassigned employee as alleged by Carrier. The Board is confined to rely upon the record on the property and will not consider new arguments or matters raised for the first time.
Carrier denied this claim on three bases. First, it contended that Claimant was not available for the call because she had not yet assumed a position in this location. Second, Carrier stated that the position was filled by a Clerk who was senior to the Claimant. Third, Carrier argued that because no Clerk was on duty at the time the vacancy occurred, it was within the Terminal Manager's responsibility to assure he had sufficient staff, and the three phone calls he made to fill the vacancy were incidental to his duties in this regard.
A review of the record convinces the Board that the Organization failed to meet its burden of proving that Carrier violated the Agreement by filling the vacancy in issue as it did. Regardless of whether Claimant could be considered unavailable for the position, the fact remains that the senior available Clerk worked the vacancy. Further, there was admittedly no Clerk on duty at the time the incumbent called in sick, and phone calls had to be made to seek a replacement for the vacancy created. There is no dispute that the Terminal Manager made three phone calls which took less than five minutes of his time. Scope Rule 1(c), which provides that clerical duties incidental to the primary duties of a non-covered employee may be performed by such employee, is applicable to the instant situation and permits the Terminal Manager to have acted as he did. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.