SPECIAL HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 117
ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
and
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Claim of the General - Committee of The 'Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the
Missouri Pacific Railroad that: -
CASE 1
1. Carrier violated the terms of the agreement between the parties when
on Wednesday, July
13;
Tuesday, July
19;
Wednesday, July 20, Tuesday,
July 26;
Wednesday,
July 2
; Tuesday, August
2;
and Wednesday, August
3, 1955,
it failed to use . M. Campbell, the regularly assigned
Assistant Chief Operator; "GM" Relay Office, St. Louis, in thb, absence . ..
of the regular relief employe or an available extra employe. - '
2.
Carrier shall compensate Z. M. Campbell for
8
hours at the time arid
one-half rate for
JUy
13,
19, 20', 26; 27
and August
2
and 3,
1955.E
CASE
2
1. Carrier violated the terms of the agreement between the parties when
on Sunday, July
24;
Monday,
July
25;
Sunday,
July
31; Monday, August
1, and Monday, August
8,
1955,
it failed to use F. W.'Newell, the
regularly assigned day Chief Operator, "GM" Relay OfficR, St. Louis,
in the absence of the regular relief employe or an available extra;
employe.
2.
Carrier shall compensate F. W. Newell for
8
hours at time and one-,half rate for July
24, 25,
31, and August 1 and
8, 1955.
CASE
3
° '° 1. Carrier violated the terms of the agreement between the parties when
on Sunday, July
17, 1955,
it failed to use A. T. Young the regularly
assigned Assistant Manager "GM" Relay Office, St'. Louis, in the absence of the regular relief employe or an available extra employe.
2.
Carrier shall compensate A. T. Young for
8
hours at the time and one-,.
half rate.for July 17,
1955.
r
Award No.
46 i .
Docket No.
46
.. _ CASE
4
1. Carrier violated the terms
of
the agreement between the parties when
on Monday,oJuly
18, 1955,
it failed to use M. S. Varn, the regularly
assigned Assistant Night Chief Operator "GM" Relay Office, St. Louis,
in the absence of the regular relief employe or an available extra
employe.
2. Carrier shall compensate M. S. Varn for
8
hours at time and one-half
rate for July
18, 1955. .
CASE
5 ,
1. Carrier violated the terms of the agreement between the parties when
on Thursday, July
14, 1955,
it failed to use V. I. Mason, the senior
idle extra employe on position No. 10 "GM" Relay Office, St. Louis,
in the absence of the regular relief employe.
2. Carrier shall compensate V. I. Mason for
8
hours at the pro rata rate :of position No. 10 for July
14, 1955.
OPINION OF BOARD: This docket concerns the claims of five named individuals that the
Carrier violated Rule 8. Section 2(d), (e),
(3);
Rule
9,
Section 1,
paragraph II-A(1); and Rule
14(f),
when on the enumerated dates the Carrier failed to
use four of them to fill their regularly assigned positions in the absence of the
regular relief employe. The fifth claim concerns the alleged failure. of the Carrier ""
to assign the senior idle extra employe to fill a position in the absence of the
regular relief employe.
The Organization asserts that the positions
in
question were 7-day
positions within the meaning of Rule 8-2(d), with assigned rest. days which were filled
by the use of regular assigned relief employes who.were not available on the dates in
question. The,Organization pointed out that the. Carrier had made the regular relief
assignments,.-.in accordance. with Rule 8-2(e) and that, in the absence of the regular
relief employes in the first four claims or the senior idle extra employe in the
fifth claim, the Carrier was required to have the work performed by the regular
employes or the senior idle extra employe within the meaning of. Rule
8,
Section 2(,j).
The Organization asserted that the right of a regular employe or
a senior idle extra employe (when available) to occupy a 7-day position to an assignment on a rest day was not subject to question within the meaning of the above cited
rules nor under Awards
4244, 4245, 4247, 4575
and
6524.
The respondent took the, position that none of the claims with which
we are concerned in this docket were valid for the reason that no employe was used on
the dates in question and that Rule
8,
Section 2(j), was applicable only in cases
where work was.performed on the position when such days were unassigned days of the
position.
The respondent pointed out that each of the positions in question
was assigned to a regular rest day relief employe and that no rule of the agreement
- 2 -
4
' Award No. 46
pocket No.
46
required the Carrier to fill a 7-day position
on
any day where the regularly assigned
occupant to the position on the date in question was absent due to reasons best known
to him.
The respondent further asserted that the awards relied upon by the Organization had to do with operations prior to September 1949 in regard to positions necessary to the continuous operation of the railroad which were rendered meaningless by
the adoption of the rules contained 3.n the effective agreement which were incorporated
as a result of the National 40-Hour Week Agreement.
As stated'above, all of the positions here involved are 7-day positions to
which employes have been regularly assigned on a 5-day basis with two days of rest
and to which regular'relief assignments have been applied and filled.
The contention of the Organization in each of these claims can be summed up
by this proposition -- is the Carrier required to use the regular occupant of .a
position on one of his rest days when the regular'relief employe is absent and there
is no senior idle extra employe and/or is the Carrier required to use a senior idle
extra employe in the absence of a regular relief employe?
The awards relied upon by the Organization which required and made.mandatory the filling of 7-day positions were rendered prior to the National 40-Hour Week
Agreement and inclusion of certain rules in the effective agreement effectuating such
National Agreement.
We are of the opinion that Rule
8-2(3).is
not applicable because the work
here involved was not work on an unassigned day and that where a "vacancy" exists on
a rest day of a 7-day position where such "vacancy" does not occur by any overt act
of the Carrier but, rather, due to the illness or absence of the regularly assigned
relief employe, need not be filled but may be blanked.
We are of the opinion that Awards
6691
and
5589
enunciated a principle
which is controlling here when it was said:
Award
5589
..
" . . , the fact of not filling such positions on scattered days is not an
indication that they are not bona fide six or seven-day positions, that is,
where the blanking is not due to an affirmative act of the Carrier but because
of
theemploye's failure to report for duty . . ..The foregoing indi- _.,
' cates that it is implicit in the Forty-Hour Week Agreement that the Carrier. ..
of its own motion may nab blank established six and seven-day positions of
the nature here involved when the regularly assigned occupant and the
relief report for duty. To go further and say that where such employes do
not report for duty, Carrier must work other regularly assigned employes
or relief men either on rest days or by doubling over on an overtime
basis, in our opinion would be legislating for the parties . . . "
Award
6691 '
" . . The real issue in this case is, therefore, whether the 40-Hour
Agreement prohibits the Carrier from blanking the assignment which was
vacant because of the illness of its occupant. As to this, the Employes
contend, first, that under the Agreement that was in effect prior to
i e
" ' - ' Award No.
46
Docket No.
46
"September,
1949,
the rule was that 'position necessary to the continuous
operation of the carrier', (i.e., the duties of which were necessary
seven days a week) could-not be blanked; for to blank any part of them
would mean that the position was not necessary on all seven days. They
argue, secondly, that the Wire Chiefs' positions in this case being seven
day positions within the meaning of the Note and paragraph (d) of Rule 4,
the same rule is applicable under the 40-Hour Agreement.
"We cannot agree with this contention. There is no rule in the 40-Hour
provisions of the Agreement which prohibits blanking a position when the
occupant is absent because of illness, or other reason of his own . . . "
For the reasons above stated, we are of the opinion that none of these
claims are valid. `
FINDINGS: The Special Board of Adjustment No. 117, upon the whole record and all the
evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively
Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as approved June
21, 1934ti
,That this Special Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein; and,
That the Carrier did not violate the effective agreement.
AWARD
Cases 1, 2, 3, 4 and
5
denied.
SPECIAL BOARD Oh' ADJUSTMENT N0. 117
Livi b
~ .1
C. 0. Griffith - Member G. W. J hn on - Carrier Member
St. Louis, Missouri
~~Y~.~
July 31,
1956
.~'$~I®
J;`~