Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 36974
Docket No. CL-37674
04-3-03-3-27

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee John B. LaRocco when award was rendered.

(Transportation Communications International Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE:



STATEMENT OF CLAIM :







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.
Form 1 Award No. 36974
Page 2 Docket No. CL-37674
04-3-03-3-27



On December 13, 1999, the Organization claimed that the Carrier violated Rule 23(s)(2) of the applicable Agreement on October 25, 1999. It alleged that when the Claimant reported for duty on October 25, 1999 the Manager assigned the Claimant to perform the work of Position No. 36 (the AEI desk) in addition to the duties of her regular Position No. 83 (the Industry DGNO desk). The Organization further alleged that the Claimant divided her time equally between the two jobs.


The Carrier argued that the Claimant's position title is Customer Service Representative and the Shreveport Customer Service Center is the Claimant's assigned work location. The Carrier, therefore, concluded that the Claimant did not change her assigned work location. The Carrier elaborated that Rule 23(s)(2) was inapplicable to the Claimant because she was not away from her assigned work location. The Carrier alternatively argued that it could properly blank Position No. 36 and assign another employee to accomplish the duties of the blanked position inasmuch as the incumbent was taking Sick Leave pursuant to Rule 47.





Form I Award No. 36974
Page 3 Docket No. CL-37674
04-3-03-3-27
position, then the above designated employe shall be paid a
minimum of 3 hours at the pro rata rate for each occurrence.





Form 1 Award No. 36974
Page 4 Docket No. CL-37674
04-3-03-3-27
minute basis at the pro rata rate of the position worked or his position,
whichever be the higher."





Rule 47(2) clearly and unambiguously states that when an employee is absent due to sickness, the Carrier has the option to fill, partially fill, or blank the position of the absent employee. Rule 23(s)(1) grants the Carrier the discretion to blank a position when an employee is receiving compensation per Rule 47. More importantly, Rules 23(s)(1) and 23(s)(2) have an exception that renders Rule 23(s) harmonious with Rule 47. Subsection two of Rule 23(s) generally provides that an employee who performs the assigned duties of a blanked position is entitled to an additional allowance. The exception arises if the incumbent of the blanked position is being compensated with Rule 47 sick leave. Concomitantly, Rule 23(s)(2) is inapplicable if the assigned duties of the blanked position are worked while the incumbent is receiving sick leave compensation as ". . . specified in (1)." Stated differently, if the incumbent of the blanked position is off work due to sickness and receiving compensation under Rule 47, the Carrier is exempt from paying the additional compensation provided by Rule 23(s)(2) to the employee who performs some or all of the duties of the blanked position.


Close examination of the evidence exchanged on the property demonstrates that the parties reasonably presumed that the incumbent of Position No. 36 was receiving

Form 1 Award No. 36974
Page 5 Docket No. CL-37674
04-3-03-3-27

sick pay pursuant to Rule 47. In its Submission to the Board, the Organization noted that the employee marking off sick did not claim compensation pursuant to Rule 47. No evidence was presented on the property to substantiate the Organization's assertion in its Submission. Thus, the Board cannot consider the Organization's factual assertion that the incumbent did not receive sick leave, because it raised the assertion for the first time in its Submission.


Therefore, in accordance with our analysis and application of Rules 47(2) 23(s)(1) and 23(s)(2) the Carrier was not required to pay the Claimant with additional compensation for performing the duties of Position No. 36 as well as performing the duties of her regularly assigned position.








This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that an Award favorable to the Claimant(s) not be made.



                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of April 2004.