ORG. FILE
8-50 AWARD NG. 23
CARxIER FILE
D-2868
CASE NO.
23
NRAB FILE
CL-9683
SPECIAL BDAND OF ADJUSAYIENT NO.
194
PARTIES The Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes
TO
DISPUTE
St, Louis-San Francisco iiailway Company
STATEMENT OF CLAIM: Claim of the System Committee of the Brotherhood
that:
(1) The Carrier violated the terms of the currently effective
Agreement between the parties when on May
30, 1956
it discontinued the holiday
assignment of the Motor Operator position at Joplin Missouri, and assigned the
work to a Group 1 Yard Clerk on holidays and when on June 11, it discontinued
the holiday assignment on the Motor Operator-Janitor position at Joplin, Missouri,
and assigned the work thereof on holidays to a Group 1 Yard Clerk.
(2)
That G. L, Garde, occupant of the Motor Operator position
now be allowed a days pay at time and one-half for the holiday, July
4, 1956,
(3)
That G. L. Provins, occupant of the Motor Operator-Janitor
position now be allowed a days pay at time and one-half for the holiday, July
4, 1956.
FINDINGS: Special Board of Adjustment No.
194,
upon the whole record
and all the evidence, finds and holds:
The Carrier and Employes involved in this dispute are respectively
Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act as amended,
This Special Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over this
dispute,
This claim presents the question whether the Agreement prevents
the Carrier from discontinuing the holiday assignment of a Group 3 Motor
Operator-Janitor position and assigning the holiday work to a Group 1 Yard Clerk
position.
The holiday work in question was part of the regular assigxvnent
of two Group 3 positions: a Motor Operator position
(7:45
AM to
4:45
FM) and
a Motor Operator-"Janitor position (3:00'FM to 11:00
FM),
The work required
to be performed on the holiday included the operation of a fork-lift in the hand
ling of mail and baggage from a train due 8:00 AN and from another train due
8:45 PM.
" 11
It is established by the record that the holiday work was part of
the regular assignments of these two Group 3 positions during the work week; and
that, prior to the abolishment of the holiday assignment, the holiday work had
always been assigned to these two Group 3 positions. Award
4827
and SBA No.
194
Award
9
therefore have no application here,
AWARD
NO - 23
First. fae held in SBA
No,
194
Award
19
that, while in the absence of a rule to
the contrary, a Carrier may not assign work across group lines, this Agreement
does not prohibit such assignments,
The situation presented by this claim, however, has nothing to do
with group lines, since the claim is based upon specific rules of the Agreement
relating to holiday work; and these rules protect this work to these claimants
under Mule
43
(g).
Second. Rule
43
(g) provides:
"Where work is required by the carrier to be performed on a
day which is not a part of any assignment, it may be performed
by an available extra or unassigned employe who will otherwise
not have
40
hours of work that week; in all other cases by the
regular employe,"
In its decision No. 2, the Committee set up under Article VI of the Agreement
of March
19, 1949
(Forty Hour Week Agreement) interpreted the provisions of
Section
3
(i) of that Agreement (which is Rule
43
(g) in part as follows:
"Lv'here work is required to be performed on a holiday which is
not a part of any assignment, the regular employe shall be used."
This principle is further confirmed by Award
7134,
in which it was held:
"From this it is plain that if holiday work is assigned to a
regular employe performing the work in the work week in which
the holiday occurs$ it belongs to the regular employe by virtue
of his assignment. If the holiday work is not assigned, it likewise belongs to the regular employes under the interpretation
of the Forty-Hour Week Committee, But in either instance,
holiday work may be blanked without penalty under Rule
4-A-3,"
Third. There is further the provision of itule
48,
the last sentence of which
provides that "employes regularly assigned to class of work for which overtime
is primarily necessary shall be given preference." The class of work here performed on the unassigned holidays of these Group
3
positions was the same on
these holidays as on the five days of the employes' assignments. In connection
with Rule
48
the Carrier agreed in its file
3001-53
dated November
15, 1946
as
follows:
"In connection with this subject you brought up Aule
48
and I
advised you that time worked on Sundays and holidays would be
considered overtime and such overtime handled on basis provided
for in Aule
48.
This, of course, not to apply to positions
necessary to the continuous operation of the Railway where
regular rest day is assigned under Rule
50."
When the holiday assignment on these two positions was abolished,
the holidays became unassigned holidays on these two positions. The use of Group 1
employes to perform this work to the exclusion of the employes to whom the work
was regularly assigned on other days of the work week constituted a violation of
the Agreement.
-2-
~4
~ AWARD NO.
23
Fourth, itule y(b) of the
1946
Agreement provides.
"Rnployes called to work onSundays or assigned day off duty in
lieu thereof and specified holidays, shall be allowed a minimum of
eight hours at time and one-half rate, except as otherwise pro
vided in
Rule
50
(Sunday and Holiday Work)."
There is a dispute pending before the Forty Hour S-leek Committee Involving Rule
44
(b) as~'14 ~'to which the parties have agreed that the "Question at Issue" is "Revision
of Rule
1;
(b) in the current Agreement."
The Carrier proposal reads: I'FSmpleyes called to work on holidays
specified in Rule
50
shall be allowed a minimum of eight hours at time and one-half
rate." The adoption of this proposal would have the effect of removing rest days
from the operation of Rule
44
(b) and covering them under Rule
44
(a), which would
make this claim sustainable for no more than a minimum call.
The Organization made no proposal, contending that "the rule should
not be disturbed in any way" in view of Article II Section
3
(c) of the Forty Hour
Week Agreement
which provides
that '?existing provisions relating to calls shall
remain unchanged." If the Organization position should be adopted, this would make
the claim sustainable as presented for eight hours at the pro rata rate.
The Organization contends that, in view of the Carrier's proposal,
and Article III Section 3(d) of the Forty Hour Week Agreement
which provides
that "existing provisions relating to pay for holidays shall remain unchanged,"
Rule
44
(b) is not in dispute and is hence operative insofar as holidays are
concerned, whatever the case may be with respect to rest days.
But we view Rule
44
(b) in its entirety as having been put within
the scope of the submission to the Committee. The contention of the Organization
involves treating the Carrier's proposal as an isolated concession of the continuing
operative effect of the portion of Rule
44
(b) relating to holidays; and it also
involves a determination of the meaning and application of Article II Section 3 (c)
and (d) of the Forty Hour Week Agreement, which is part of the Committee's
function rather than ours.
A W A R D
Item 1 of the claim sustained
Items 2 and
3
of the claim remanded for final disposition
in accordance with the decision of the Forty Hour Week Committee and this award.
/s/ Hubert Wyckoff
Chairman
/a/
T. P. Deaton /s/ F, H. Wright
Carrier Member ;mploye Member
Dated at St. Louis, Missouri August
6, 1954
-3-