SPECXAL BOARD OF ADSUSTMENT NO. 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:
1. Carrier violated the rules of the agreement when A. R. Brown was
donied one day's pay he lost on September 28, 1952, transferring
frop_Night Chief Operator's position, Monroe, Louisiana, to which
he,had been diverted to perform emergency service back to his own
position rest day relief operator, Monroe, Louisiana, because of
the federal Hours of Service Act.
2. Carrier shall now compensate A. R. Brown for 8 hours at the
straight time rate of the relief position, Monroe, Louisiana, for
September 28, 1952.
OPINION OF BOARD: Claim is here made in behalf of one A. R. Brown whom the
Organization asserts was occupying the rest day relief position at the Monroe Relay Office and who allegedly lost one day's pay account
transferring from Night Chief Operator's position back to his own rest day relief
position because of the federal Hours of Service Act, which action on the part of
the Carrier is in contravention of Rule 5(a), Section 1(f) of Rule 8, and Rules
10(e) and 19(b).
The Organization pointed out that beginning on September 17,
1952, the claimant here was required to perform emergency service
within the
meaning of Rule 5(a) and that, by virtue of such rule, the claimant here had
no
choice
other than to transfer from the regular relief position to which he was assigned
to that of Night Chief Operator, and that when the position of Late Night Chief
Operator was filled by an employe named Warren under Rule 14(e) the claimant here,
through no fault of his
own,
was not permitted to return to and work the regular
relief position on September 28.
The Organization pointed out that the claimant here was entitled to return to his relief assignment from which he had been moved by the
Carrier and that, even
though he
were to be considered on the date in question as
an extra employe, he would nonetheless, be entitled to work the rest day of the
Manager's position since he was, on that date, a qualified extra man who had not
already had 40 hours' work in his work week.
The respondent here counters with the statement that the
claimant here was not entitled to receive 8 hours at the pro rata rate for September 28, 1952, since he was not arbitrarily moved from the Night Chief position and
assigned to the Telegrapher position by the Carrier, but that the move of the
claimant from one position to the other was brought about by other employes within
the office exercising their seniority under Rule 14(e).
Award No. 50
Docket No. 50
The respondent further asserts that Rule 19(b) is not here applicable
by virtue of the fact that the time lost, if any, by the claimant was not due to
the Hours of Service Act but due to the fact that he was detached from his regular
relief position by the exercise of seniority on the part of other employes and was,
therefore, not scheduled to work his position on the date in question, and that
the claimant's contention, if sustained here, would result in the finding that a
junior employe should be worked on a rest day to the prejudice of a senior employe
who was then the incumbent of the position.
There is no dispute as to the pertinent facts of record here. The
regular occupant of the Night Chief position with assigned hours 4:00 p.m. to
midnight was absent from'his position due to illness. The Carrier here, due to
the emergency and within the meaning of Rule 5, moved the claimant from his
regular rest day position and placed him on the Night Chief's position vacancy
created by the illness of the regular occupant. The claimant here worked the
position of 'the Night Chief continuously from the date to which he was assigned
it on September 17 through September 27. Due to the exercise of seniority, there
then took place a movement within the meaning of Rule 14(e) by which hate Night
Chief Warren moved to the position of Night Chief and the occupant of the Telegrapher's position (Crockett) moved to the position of 'Late Night Chief. Prior
to the date in question, due to the fact that there were only enough employes at
this.~ocation to fill all the positions in question, the occupants'of,each position had been working both the 5 assigned days and the 2 rest days of each position. When the movement of employes oc6urred,'the last day on which the claimant
woried the Night Chief position, that is, September 27, he worked from 4:00 p.m.
to 12:00 midnight. The regular relief position to which -the Organization contends
he should have been permitted to return had ;assigned hours commencing at 8:00 a.m.
on Sunday, September 28, thus placing at issue the Hours of Service Act
There can be little doubt but that claimant Broom was moved from the
relief assignment, which he ordinarily held and which was on September 28
scheduled to work a rest day of the Manager's position, to the position of Night
Chief was done properly under Rule 5(a). There can be no further doubt but what
the movement of employes Warren and Crockett was fully permissible within the
meaning of Rule 14(e).
The sole question to be resolved here is whether or not the exercise
of seniority by employes Warren and Crockett left claimant Brown in a position
that he could properly request to fill the rest day of the Manager's position
then held by employe Allen, or whether.or not Allen, as the regular occupant of
the Manager's position, was entitled to work the same at the punitive rate. The
claimant here, upon the exercise of seniority by employes Warren and Crockett, -
was assigned by the Carrier to fill the positioh of Telegrapher (that positiop
formerly occupied by employe Crockett), which was a 5-day position of which
September 28 was not one of the five assigned days.
We are of the opinion that it matters' not, in this instance, whether
it is considered that claimant Brown here was entitled to return to his regular
rest day relief assignment or whether he_was detached from his regular relief
Award No.
50
Docket No.
50
position and not scheduled to work that position on the date in question. September 28 was the rest day of the Manager's position and was worked by employe Allen.
If Brown were to be considered as having a right to the relief day assignment, he
would have been entitled to work it, but we
cALo
not think, nor do we find and hold,
that he had this right in this instance. Rather, when he was detached from the
Night Chief position by the exercise of seniority on the part of Warren and
Crockett and thus returned to the position of Telegrapher, he then and there
assumed the status, that is, on September 28, of an extra employe since the Telegrapher's position was not scheduled to work until September
29.
As an extra employe, he obviously had not had
40
hours' work within his work week and, as such,
was entitled to work the rest day of the Manager's position. The=a is a long line
of decisions which hold that rest day work belongs (1) to the regular rest day
relief employe,
(2)
to the qualified extra man who has not had
40
hours of work
in his work week, and
(3)
to the regular employe who works the position on the
regular assigned days '.:hereof. As an extra employe who hn2 -of otherwise had
40
hours' work in the wors wee'X. the claimant was entitled to perform the rest day
service on the Manager's position on the date in question.
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, 1934.
That this Special Board of Adjustment has ,jurisdiction over the dispute
involved herein; and,
That the Carrier violated the effective agreement.
AWARD
Claim sustained for
8
hours at the pro rata rate.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 117
Liyin °~
MI 'M
- rman
C. 0. Griffit -Paoye Member G. W. Joh o -Carrier Member
St. Louis, Missouri
August
9, 1956
-3-