COPY
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSUII~''NT N0.
192
PARTIES: BROTHERHOOD OF RAIIWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
and
THE BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY
AWARD IN DOCKET N0. 22
STATEMENT Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood that:
OF CLAIM:
(1) Carrier violated the Clerks' Agreement when it assigned Relief Clerk
R. L. Brokaw, Mansfield, Ohio, beginning with January
8, 1955,
to perform cleaning
work when his assignment calls for him to relieve the Rate Clerk, and
(2)
That Claimant R. L. Brokaw be paid for one day at Trucker's rate on
January
8, 1955,
and each subsequent date he is required to perform such cleaning
work.
FINDINGS:
Claimant held a regular relief assignment relieving a Rate Clerk at Mansfield,
Ohio, on Saturdays, the Yard Clerk at Shelby on Sundays and Mondays and the Ticket
Clerk at Mansfield on Tuesdays and Wechesdays. On January
8, 1955
and February
19,
1955,
he was instructed to perform certain cleaning work in the freight office on
Saturdays. Prior to that time the cleaning work involved was performed by a
trucker and was not performed by the incumbent of the Rate Clerk's position.
The employees' main argument in support of this claim is centered around the
asserted reservation of work in one of the four Groups as opposed to other Groups
listed in Rule 1 (Scope). In our Award in Docket No.
45
we indicated that such
reservation of work is not absolute. In any event we do not find Rule 1 (Scope)
to be the controlling rule in this case. Its disposition is governed by Rule
3(e-2), which reads as follows:
11(e-2) Assignments for regular relief positions may on
different days include different starting times, duties
and work locations for employees of the same class in the
same seniority district, provided they take the starting
time, duties and work locations of the employee or employees whom they are relieving.'?
Since it is shown that a trucker normally performs the cleaning work here
involved and that the duties of the position which the claimant was relieving did
not include such cleaning work, the assignment thereof to the claimant on Saturdays
was violative of the requirements of Rule 3(e-2).
Docket No. 22
It follows that the claim should be sustained in accordance with the practice of
the parties for four hours at pro rata since it is shown that no more than that
amount of time was spent by the claimant in performing the cleaning work involved.
AWARD
Claim (1) and (2) sustained to the extent indicated in Findings.
/s/ Francis J. Robertson
Chairman
/s/ E. J. Hoffman /s/ T. S. Woods
Employee Member Carrier Member
Dated at Baltimore Maryland this
25th day of August,
1959.-