This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein:
On November 15, 1999, the Organization claimed that the Carrier violated Rule 23(s)(2) of the applicable Agreement because the Carrier, on three dates, purportedly blanked a position and then assigned the duties of the blanked position to the Claimant. The Organization specified that on September 18, 25 and October 2, 1999, the Carrier blanked the Dallas desk, Customer Service Relief Position No. 141, because the incumbent was serving a disciplinary suspension.
The Claimant was regularly assigned to the AEI desk, Customer Service Relief Position No. 84, from 12:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M. The Organization declared that when the Claimant reported for duty on the three dates in question, the Manager directed her to perform the duties of the blanked position (the Dallas desk) as well as the duties of her regularly assigned position (the AEI desk). The Organization further declared that the Claimant worked each position for four hours. The Organization implied, on the property, that the Claimant went from the AEI desk to the Dallas desk. So from the Organization's perspective, the Claimant was away from her regularly assigned work location when she performed the duties of the Dallas desk.
The Carrier denied the claim contending that it had the right to transfer the duties of the Dallas desk to the Claimant because the bulletin advertising the Claimant's position states that she can be assigned "any other duties as may be assigned." The Carrier also characterized the Organization's claim for four hours of pay at the pro rata rate for each of the three days as a request for an impermissible penalty payment.
In its Submission, the Carrier raised two arguments for the first time. First, it asserted that the Claimant probably did not move from her desk, or if she did, she only moved a few feet. The Carrier implies that calls for the Dallas desk were routed to the Claimant's AEI desk. The Carrier therefore concluded that the Claimant was not away from her assigned work location. Thus, she was not entitled to any additional pay per Rule 23(s)(2). The Carrier's second argument is related to its first argument. The Carrier averred that the duties of the blanked position and the Claimant's position were fungible. Thus, the Carrier intimated that it could properly assign the functions of the Dallas desk job to the Claimant because the work was interchangeable with the Claimant's regularly assigned duties.
The Board cannot address or consider these two arguments because they are raised for the first time in the Carrier's Submission. The Carrier failed to raise these arguments on the property. During the appeal on the property, the Carrier also relied exclusively on its contentions that: (1) the claim constituted an improper request for a penalty payment; and (2) that the Carrier could properly assign the duties of the Dallas desk to the Claimant under the language in the bulletin that states, "any other duties as may be assigned." Moreover, the Carrier apparently abandoned the latter argument in its Submission.
Because the Board may not consider the Carrier's arguments that the work was fungible or that the Claimant did not move from her assigned location, the Board is left with only the evidence, submitted by the Organization on the property that alleges that the Carrier violated Rule 23(s)(2).
Pursuant to Rule 23(s)(2) the Carrier may, in its discretion, blank a position. However, a position is genuinely blanked only if nobody performs the work of the position. See Third Division Award 30265. Thus, Rule 23(s) governs a situation where the Carrier decides that some or all of the assigned duties of the blanked position should be performed. On the three claim dates, the Claimant performed the duties of the Dallas desk as well as the duties of her regularly assigned position. The Organization came forward with unrebutted evidence that the Claimant spent four hours performing the functions of the Dallas desk and that she was away from her assigned work location. Therefore, the Claimant satisfied the requirements of the second sentence of Rule 23(s)(2). Form 1 Award No. 36973
The claim for four hours at the pro rata rate for each of the three days is not a penalty claim primarily because Rule 23(s)(2) expressly describes the remedy when the Carrier assigns an employee covered by the Agreement to perform some or all of the duties of a blanked position. The second sentence of Rule 23(s)(2) clearly specifies that the employee performing the duties of the blanked position shall be compensated with an "additional . . . allowance" at the straight-time rate.
Therefore, the Claimant is entitled to four hours' pay at the straight-time rate for each of the three claim dates. The Board stresses that its decision is narrowly restricted solely to the facts, evidence, and arguments of this particular claim. Our ruling therein shall not constitute or be cited as precedent in any future case.
This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an award favorable to the Claimant(s) be made. The Carrier is ordered to make the Award effective on or before 30 days following the postmark date the Award is transmitted to the parties.