SPEC: AT,,
Bonn
Ow
musnpoT
NO. 6q,
PARTIES ) Brotherhood of Railway, Airline
and
Steamship Clerks,
TO ) Freight Handlers, :_-:press & Station Employes
DISPUTE ) nd
Houston Belt and Terminal Railway Company
_ ~?, QUESTIONS
SAT ISSUE: (1) Is Elmo Quarles a protected. employe undor the
provisions of Article I, Section I of the
February 7, 1905 Alreement?
(2) Shall. the Carrier be required to compensa to
Elmo
Quarles the wage losses he suf_ret on
,._ ·e.. .
and after T'al.'On 7-, 1965
UriC~.,l
_. the provisions
of Article IV, Section 2 of the February 7, ,
1965 AgrcemnM
OPINION
OF BOARD: The issue presented herein raises the intriguing question as
to when dons au e:.:p_oyr.:ent relation begin with a Carrier?
11-1
1961, the Claimant was furlouZhod as a Coach Cleaner,
a
position
under the scope
Or
-. the £h0'pOra'ft Organization. On Oato3ar 7,
1961, he was employed as an Extra Stevedore, a position within the stop- of the
Brotherhood. In addition, he also performed extra work as Coach Cleaner and
Mail and Baggage Porter - - the latter position also within the scope of this
Brotherhood. A review of the Claimant's work record during the pzriod of 1962
1964, reveals the following days worked:
Coach Cleaner stevelore 11 & B Porter
1962 X50 _
_ 9
Z,
1963 132 49 6
1964 IO 98
6
192 156 10
The
Organization contends that the Claimant had a two year
employment relationship with the Carrier under the Clerk's Agreement, The
Carrier, in turn, argues that the Claimant did not establish a clerical
relationship until Dacer!ser 7, 1965., when he was assigned to a l.__ssenger position.
Tae Carrier, however, does concede that the Claimant had an emolcymont relationship as o,. October 1, 1962, but it wasp as a Coach Cleaner - - a c;=rift: not pasty to
the February 7, 1965 National Agreement. In addition, the Carries argues that
the Claimant did not becomes a dues paying member of the Organization herein until
August 30, 1967.
In Award No. 34, CL-28-E, we had occasion to discuss the -smifications of an employment relationship versus seniority. in fact, Question anC':
Answer No. 5, under Article I, Section 1, of the November 24, 1965 interpretations,
_,_ ....:C. ..!.
J- I.
V~..'.v .,5.
CIL-
2
JJ
_-
si,eci.r:ica 11y dl-lineates tirc terms. It is possible to h~lvc
t-t , -oyi
.:~:.t:
relation
snip
sepnraLe ; nc; «. fro:: ,, senior'ty ..~1.:;t:ic-i.;:~7_i~.
.,~ _..u..,.~__<<
in !ward ho. 34, the following:
"Sellioriityy, nor:a..'~l.i.y, flo'.d:: fro:; 1:::~
~,<-,·; ~,_:~ia
of. the p,~rtias _.., evi_denced by ti..- co7.lectiv;yj;-.,_
___-1_
inS contract. Conversely, Lt:e e:n,loy::c_t rol::-ti~,:a~i.p
arisos wh:-n an cr~lcyc:e is fi::;;~ hi-ied - ~:::c:t:c:: i::
C
bar_ ainin-, unit or encep~:<:d pc sition. Fence; the
C:itpLOyWn :: rCla.a.OnSi'ii_7 ncud not- be cc, wit",
senior ity.tt
r
i'7:', are
2.160
CO,_`,71f%Zant Othe GaT-iiCrtS c:..~, ,._W
aS ..__I:. iOr~..
in Question and l'nsswer No. 9, vllder A7'tici.e
1,
SCction 1,`oth,^_ :i(,JC::~e'_ L~4.
1965 In1:E'.rprctc`I:10113y t0 the C7:fCCt tii~·.t ~i:~ployil~nt in
11:;."_C ~a<`:,:1
one Craft
ordinarily cannot be counted in dctc-rmini.ng protCcted
....c...,....
. t , ,
In this posture, the p..o.7leca l,:ay even be acmt~.;:".c in vi-:w c_
the fact that loss of carnings would be mini.ca, if any. I:c~,artilel.c.ss, tire
basic qucstion is whethter the Clail:w nt ucqu-ircd a clerical clai~lcy_:~.. _cir.tionship with tile Carries: in October, 1961, w:::l:: initially he was c:ilploycdr<.., <,
Stevedore? In our view, consistent With our A·:·ard \o. 34. tile- em;71oyr~--nt
relationship within this Or-allization"s scope sacs astcblish·_,d on C;=ober 7, 1901.
T:1, record further indicates that he caori;cd
COntin'ued tills relatlosh-ip
C'
1963 and 196'~:.'i.'1,--~' i~6~,
deition, having 93 days with i:. this ~ioaniza_ion'~
r. In a ,
scope in 19649 it is oar conclusion that the Claimant qualificd a_ a protected
employee.
A'dP°D
The answer to questions (1) and (2.) is in the affirmatLive.
0/~/
~flxray .4. Rohr: cn`.
/Neutral Tytuber
Dated: ?,'ashington, D. C.
November 17, 1969'