The Claimant entered employment with Amtrak on August 20,1985. At the time of the dispute, the Claimant was employed as a Commissary Clerk (Catering Services Worker) at South Station, Boston, Massachusetts. The Claimant was covered under the Northeast Corridor Clerical Agreement. The Agreement was made effective on July 21, 1972, covering clerical, other office, station, and storehouse employees.
The Carrier bulletined a position of Baggage/Mail Handler at the South Station, Boston, BG836, from 7:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M. The job description included a requirement to cover Train 448 at South Station, Boston, whose arrival time was after 4:00 P.M. The Claimant applied and was awarded with the position. The Claimant was held in his former position, CW-834, until June 22, 1997 and was then transferred into the baggage room position on June 23,1997. The Organization originally filed this claim Form 1 Award No. 35449
on August 16, 1997 citing violation of Rule 2-A-1 of the current Agreement requesting compensation for the higher pay rate during the delay of employment.
The Carrier paid the Claimant the higher daily straight time rate of the new position and the $5.00 per day penalty. The main issue of this grievance is the overtime compensation requested by the Organization. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of Rule 2-A-1 and whether the intent was for an employee to be compensated at the hourly rate of pay or for the overall earnings of the higher position. Rule 2-A-1 of the current Agreement reads as follows:
The Organization contends that the Carrier violated Rule 2-A-1 of the current Agreement when it failed to release the Claimant into his newly awarded position during the time specified by the clause and then denied him of the higher rate of pay. The time period for calculation proposed by the Organization should commence on June 8, 1997 due to the ten day specified time frame and end on the transfer date of June 23, 1997. The Organization finds the intent of Rule 2-A-1 (d) to mean, when one is awarded a given position and the person's employment is delayed that person is entitled to the higher rate of pay between the two positions. Within the baggage position, in the Organization's opinion, the Claimant would have worked 34 hours of overtime to meet the 448 Train that arrived after 4:00 P.M. on a number of days requiring compensation beyond the straight hourly rate. Therefore, in the Organization's opinion, the compensation due to the Claimant should be calculated on the overall earnings of the baggage position not just the straight hourly rate. The Organization contends that the correct remedy in this case is for the Carrier to pay the difference of the straight hourly rate and the overall earnings of the baggage position.
The Carrier contends that the claimed violation of Rule 2-A-1 is absolutely without merit. The Carrier asserts that the Claimant was compensated according to Form 1 Award No. 35449
Rule 2-A-1 and received the daily straight time rate plus the $5.00 per day penalty for the days between June 8 - 23, 1997. The Claimant, in the Carrier's opinion, is not entitled to any compensation beyond the above requirements. The Carrier contends that Rule 2-A-1 only requires that payment of the hourly rate difference between the two positions, not for the employee to be compensated for the overall earnings of the new position. The Carrier argues that compensation of overtime would fall under overall earnings and therefore, would not qualify under Rule 2-A-1.
The Carrier further contends that it is their right as management to schedule its work forces in accordance with service requirements. It illustrates this point through submission of two arbitration Awards.
The Carrier's second argument for dismissing the claim is that the Organization has failed to meet its burden of proof as required by numerous arbitration tribunals. The Organization has failed, in the Carrier's opinion, to demonstrate how any Rules or Agreements were violated and to provide any evidence to support their position.
The Carrier's final argument asserts the Claimant is not entitled to any additional compensation. 1n the Carrier's opinion, the Claimant has been paid the appropriate amount for being held in his former position. The Carrier contends it is Amtrak's managerial prerogative pursuant to the Rules Agreement to place the Claimant where he was needed due to service requirements at the time. Therefore, in the Carrier's opinion, the correct remedy in this case is to dismiss the claim because the Organization failed to produce any evidence that the Claimant lost or is entitled to any additional compensation as a result of Amtrak's actions in this dispute.
The Board finds that the Carrier did not violate Rule 2-A-1 of the current Agreement. The Board finds that it is the sole discretion of the Carrier to place their workers as needed, so long as their actions are not proscribed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. In this case, they are not. In this situation, there was no showing that the Carrier intentionally delayed the transfer to avoid placing the Claimant as a pretext for depriving him of overtime. The Organization also failed to meet its burden of persuasion in presenting evidence that the Claimant lost or was entitled to any additional compensation beyond the hourly rate, daily penalty and the expense reimbursement. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that there is no basis on which to sustain the claim. Form I Award No. 35449