VS.

MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY

Roy R. Ray, Referee


STATEMENT OF CLAIM:


3. The Senior Relief Foreman as identified be now compensated for the difference between the amount he received at his respective' rate and what he would have received at the Extra Gang Foreman's rate if the Agreement had been complied with. OPINION OF BOARD: During the periods involved ,here J. E. Autrey was regularly assigned as Track Foreman of xxtra Gang No. 587. On two separate occasions during April 19661; he absented himself from work for an entire week without previously receiving permission. In the first instance he was absent April 4 through April 8 as a result of a death in the familyh On Wednesday (April 6) Autrey called Division Engineer, Clark, who was not aware of his absence, by long distance-and asked if he could have the entire week charged to his vacation (which had been scheduled for August). Clark agreed to the request. Two weeks later (April 18) Autrey again took off without prior permission and unknown
                                              pt, 3 Na- N. - A ca4A


to Division Engineer Clark. He. was absent through April 22, this time for financial reasons.,.A£ter he returned to work on April 25th he requested and was granted permission to charge the week of April 18-22 against the remaining five days of ,h is vacation. In both instances the Company granted permission to charge the time off against his vacation to prevent Autrey from losing pay in April when he was having financial problems. During the two periods Autrey was off his position of Foreman of Gang 587 was not filled. The members of his gang were placed under the direction of Yard Foreman H. L. Harrell.
 The Organization contends that the Senior Assistant Track Foreman' or Track Foreman on the Relief Track Foreman's Roster (as listed in Chairman Jones' letter of June 14, 1966) should have been assigned to fill Autrey's job for the two weeks and that failure to so assign him was a violation of Article 4, Sections 1 and .4 of the Agreement. In its original letter of claim the organization had also charged"a violation of Article 26, Rule 6 (Vacations) and Article 27, Rules 1 and 2 (Vacation Relief Work). However, at the hearing before this Board these charges were not pressed.'
 Carrier contends that the part of the claim dealing with the week of April 4-8, 1966, is barred by time limits; and that the entire claim is without merit. It says it has complied with Article 4, Rule 1 and that nothing in Article 4, Rule 4, requires it to fill every short vacancy in the position of Foreman, nor prohibits it from blanking a foreman's position when is is of f, for a few days. Furthermore, it says Rule 4 .. is not applicable here because all. the men on the Relief Roster were regularly assigned at the times in question.

      Carrier's position with reference to the time limit rule must


                              2 _

                                                PLl3 No .'1 co- .Qwd q


be sustained. The Organization's.claim was not filed until June 14th, more than sixty days after the first alleged violation occurred on April 4-8. The rule was invoked by Chief Engineer Hunter and Vice President Winkel on the property. This Board, therefore, has no alter-
 native except to dismiss the claim involving the work week of April 4
 through April 8.
      We turn to the remaining portion of the claim. Although the

Organization did not press its earlier contention that Articles 26,'

 Rule 6, and Article 27, Rules 1 and 2 were violated, we think we should -
 put the contention to rest. In our judgement the vacation rules have no
 relevance to the present claim since at the times Autrey absented himself without. permission he was not taking a scheduled vacation and Carrier had no reason to assign vacation relief or for that matter to suppose any was needed. It was only through indulgence of the Carrier'that Autrey was. later allowed to convert his absences into his Vacation or to have them charged as such. .
 ' This leaves for consideration only the merits of that part of the claim involving failure to fill Autrey's position during the week of April 18 22 from the Relief Roster..

    - _Article 4, rule 1, provides


      The Division Engineer will select from Track Laborers' roster not to exceed four men on each seniority district to

. be used as relief assistant track foremen and/or track foremen
      on their respective seniority districts. The Track Laborers

      so selected will be advised in writing, a copy of such advice

      will be sent to General Chairman and to Local Chairman. The

      men so selected shall be those the Division Engineer regards

      as most likely material for promotion to assistant track

      foreman, and/or track foreman. These men shall be used for

      relief assistant track foreman and/or track foremen's work

      on their seniority district, and if their work as relief

      foreman or assistant foreman during the period of twelve

      consecutive months following their selection for relief work

      is satisfactory and they pass satisfactory examinations, they


                · _3 _

                                                e C.(3 PD, -7h -Rwd ~'t


r ' Z S
 shall be eligible in the order of their written designation
 as relief foreman for promotion to assistant track formanship '
 and/or track formanship on their seniority district.' Where
 conditions make necessary men may be promoted in less than
 twelve months. -
 Article 4, Rule 4, provides -
 - -, Vacancies or new.positions, that are definitely known to
 be of twenty (20) days or less duration, will not be bulletined
 The senior unassigned foreman or senior relief foreman will be
 notified at last available address of such vacancy, and shall
      - immediately inform the Division Engineer of acceptance or

      rejection. Until such senior unassigned foreman or unassigned

      relief foreman gets on the job, or if he rejects it or fails to -

      notify the Division Engineer, vacancy may be filled in the most

      practicable manner.-' -

        - Rule 1 of Article 4 deals with the selection from Track Laborers' -

    Roster of men to serve as relief assistant track foremen and track

    foremen, and with their possible promotion to such classifications.

    Since it appears from the record that all of the men listed in Chairman

    Jones' letter of June 14, as being on the Relief Roster held seniority

    as Track Foreman or Assistant Track Foreman, we find no violation of

    Rule 1. - - -

    Article 4, Rule 4, deals with the filling of short term absences.

    It says -that when it is known that a vacancy is to be for less than 20

    days the senior unassigned' foreman or,unas'signed assistant foreman will

    be offered the vacancy. We find'nothing in this rule requiring Carrier

    to fill every short term--vacancy in the Foreman's position. In our

    views it describes the procedure to be followed when a vacancy is to be


- filled. -
      But even if the Rule be considered to require the filling of such

      vacancies, the Organization has not shown that Carrier failed to comply

      with it. Carrier's evidence indicated that all 12 men on the Relief

      Foreman Roster were regularly assigned at the time in question. Since


                                _ 4 _.

PLi3 ,.~o.IG-AtA, 9
Carrier is required to offer the position only to senior unassigned men, if there was none Carrier could not have violated these rules. The Organization does not deny that all 12 men on the Roster were assigned but it says some of them were assigned on Jobs rated lower than. that of Autrey and that the Carrier was required to use such a lower rated employe. We cannot agree; the phrase "senior unassigned" is not qualified by any such limitation. .
 For the foregoing reasons we find that Carrier did not violate the Agreement.

                          AWARD


' The part of the claim involving the period of April 4-8, 1966,
 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
      The part of,the,yclaim dealing with the period of April 18-22,.


1966, is denied.

 A. J. unningha
 Emplo# Member

 Dallas, Texas
 June 19, 1968

 Public Law Board No, 7'6

 Roy R. Ray
 Neutral Member and Chairman

 A. F. Winkel
 Carrier Member