Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
THIRD DIVISION
Award No. 38076
Docket No. CL-38851
07-3-05-3-283

The Third Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee Martin II. Malin when award was rendered.

(Transportation Communications International Union PARTIES TO DISPUTE:


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:







Form 1 Award No. 38076
Page 2 Docket No. CL-38851
07-3-05-3-283
regular assigned employee, A Paul, of symbol no. TC-11, hours 1:15p
to 9:5pm the day off for Saturday September 21, 2002. The Carrier
knew in advance that she would not be in and that this left only 1
employee to sell tickets for the afternoon shift that begins at 1:15p to
9:45pm. Every work day the Carrier maintains two employees on
the same shift to sell tickets for eight (8) hours on the Ticket
Windows. At approximately 2:05pm Walker decided that since the
position had blanked - there was an error on the Carrier's part and
that two people were needed to be on the window, and since there
were not the normal two employees working - the other regularly
assigned employee would need to get his bread and lunch in, she
needed to open and cash drawer - and forget the other duties - that
are listed as primary duties in her job description that day. She
opened up at cash drawer at 2:05pm and began to sit at the ticket
windows and sell tickets until 5:45pm (which she did) according to
her work that day.
The claimant's representative was made aware of this and made an
investigation into the matter prior to filing this claim. He was able
to determine that the Carrier had used the disguise of "blank" for
TC- 11, and used the Lead Seller to perform duties as a regular
ticket seller, the Carrier did write blank next to the regularly
assigned employee's name, and did not offer any calls to claimant or
anyone else. No overtime call out sheet was made up for the known
vacancy. Claimant Whitehead would have accepted the call, as it
was her rest day, worked the vacancy, and would have received
payment at the punitive rate of pay for eight hours of work
performed. She did not receive any calls for the known vacancy.
This claim has been presented in accordance with Amtrak-TCU
Rule 7-b-1, of the NEC Agreement and mediation agreement,
Corporate Rule 25, and should be allowed/paid as presented.
Form 1 Award No. 38076
Page 3 Docket No. CL-38851
07-3-05-3-283































Form 1 Award No. 38076
Page 4 Docket No. CL-38851
07-3-05-3-283
Claimant Jackson is an regularly assigned to the Extra List as a
Ticket Seller at Newark Penn Station. His symbol no. is EX-305.
The Carrier assigned then called claimant during the call period (lp
to 3p) for the regularly Extra List employees at approximately
141pm that day to fill a Ipm to 3pm vacancy that day (TC- 10), at
1:1 5p to 9:45pm, due to the regularly schedule employee had called
in sick that morning. When claimant arrived at work he noticed
that employee, Williams was not on the Ticket Windows but was
working in the Accounting Room at performing Accounting work -
where Venezia would normally be. Claimant stopped and asked her
had she worked all day as an accountant. She indicated she did not
sell tickets but acting supervisor Walker had told her to perform
Jims work that day. Claimant then continued on to punch in. He
then was told immediately by coworkers that regularly assigned
Venezia had called in sick and why had I not been called since I am
on the Extra Board and the job Williams was working, was the first
job out, further employee, Varella of the job that I had been called
for, TC-1 O, had called in at 9:30 am or so.
Later when Claimant Jackson had the opportunity to take a break
he inquired to see if Venezia position had been blanked, and if it
had, why was he not called for the first known vacancy out. He
found out the position had been blanked, but for some reason acting
Supervisor Walker failed to follow the provisions of the Agreement,
did not call claimant, and had only assigned him to the position he
had worked that day, TC-10, hours 1:15p to 9:45pm.
Claimant Jackson is entitled to call for all known vacancies that the
carrier intends to be filled. He was not called. He would have
accepted the call, and worked the earlier tour that day.
The Carrier failed to seek the written change in the ways to fill
known vacancies from the Organization as is required in Rule 9-A-1.
The Carrier failed to follow the provisions in Appendix E-Articles,
Form 1 Award No. 38076
Page 5 Docket No. CL-38851
07-3-05-3-283
la, 4a-5, 51, 12,b,e,fg and 15a which clearly spell out how known
vacancies are to be filled.
The claim has been filed in accordance with NEC Rule 7-b-1 and
Mediation Corporate Rule 25, and should be allowed and accepted
as presented."

FINDINGS:

The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, fmds 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.




On September 21, 2002, the incumbent occupying Ticket Clerk position TC11, 1:15 P.M. - 9:15 P.M. called in sick. The Carrier blanked the position. The Organization concedes that the Carrier has a right to blank a position but maintains that when the Carrier exercises that right, it may not then divert another employee to perform the duties of that position to avoid overtime. The Organization maintains that on the date in question, the Carrier diverted the Lead Ticket Seller to perform the duties of the TC-11 position from 2:05 P.M. to 5:45 P.M. and violated the Agreement by not calling the Claimant to work the job.


We note that this case is unlike Third Division Award 37808. In that case, the Carrier blanked a Relief Ticket Clerk position from 11:30 A.M. - 8:30 P.M. but had a Lead Ticket Clerk assigned to a 10:00 A.M. - 6:30 P.M. shift sell tickets from 4:19 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. We found that when the Lead Ticket Clerk continued selling tickets beyond the end of her regular shift at 6:30 P.M., she was performing the duties of the blanked position. We sustained the claim, holding that the Carrier was

Form 1 Award No. 38076
Page 6 Docket No. CL-38851


required to call the incumbent who was on his rest day on an overtime basis. In the instant case, however, the Lead Ticket Clerk did not continue selling tickets beyond her regularly scheduled shift.


On the property, the Carrier denied the claim, stating that "the blanking of the position has nothing to do with the lead ticket clerk maintaining an open drawer and selling tickets on an as-needed basis, which is part of their job responsibilities. They maintain a cash drawer in both busy times and in slow times, when the office is fully staffed or otherwise. The fact is there are times when a "lead" may stay on the window for an entire shift."


The Organization introduced no evidence during handling on the property to refute the Carrier's denial. The Organization continued to assert that the Carrier diverted the Lead Ticket Clerk to avoid overtime but assertions are not evidence. Accordingly, the claim must be denied.


On October 10, 2002, the incumbent of Ticket Clerk/ Accounting Clerk TCTAC-1 called in sick. The Organization contends that after purporting to blank the position, the Carrier improperly diverted the employee occupying Ticket Clerk/ Accounting Clerk TC-TAC-6 to perform the duties of TC-TAC-1.


The record reflects that the incumbent occupying TC-TAC-6 worked her regular shift of 8:00 A.M. - 4:30 P.M. on October 10, 2002, whereas the shift of TCTAC-1 was 7:00 A.M. - 3:30 P.M. We note that the Description of Duties in the bulletin for TC-TAC-1 is identical to the Description of Duties in the bulletin for TC-TAC-6.


Nevertheless, the Organization contends that on Thursdays, TC-TAC-6 sold tickets and TC-TAC-1 performed accounting duties. Therefore, in the Organization's view, when the incumbent in TC-TAC-6 performed accounting duties on October 10, 2002, that employee was diverted to perform the work of TCTAC-1. However, the Organization offered no proof that TC-TAC-6 was restricted to selling tickets on Thursdays. The bulletin does not restrict the position's duties based on the day of the week. Accordingly, the Organization failed to prove that the incumbent of TC-TAC-6 performed anything other than the duties of her own position. The claim must be denied.

Form 1 Award No. 38076
Page 7 Docket No. CL-38851
07-3-05-3-283



      Claim denied.


                        ORDER


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

                      NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD

                      By Order of Third Division


Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of February 2007.