1"~° t-
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NO. 305
y DC.C I~ ~G~
THE ORDER OF RAILROAD TELEGRAPHERS
e
vs. .
F FR
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
_
(Southern & Western Districts)
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
"Claim of the General Committee of The Order of Railroad Telegraphers on
the Missouri Pacific Railroad, that:
1. Carrier violated the Agreement by its failure to maintain on a
permanent basis the rest day relief assignment at Osawatomie,
Kansas, now being worked by B. L. Talley as an extra or unassigned
employe or to regularly assign said Talley to the position.
2. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it failed
and refused to provide free transportation to Telegrapher B. L.
Talley in February and March 1958 while he performed rest day relief work four days a week in Osawatomie and one day a week at
Kansas City.
3. Carrier violated the Agreement between the parties when it failed
and refused to compensate B. L. Talley eight hours pro rata holiday
allowance as provided in the August 21, 1954 Agreement for February
22, 1958.
4. Carrier shall now be required to pay the automobile mileage for
February and March 1958 as claimed by B. L. Talley who submitted
proper claim for mileage when it was found that the passenger train
framaportation did not qualify as 'reasonable' transportation as
described in Rule 8, Section 2, and shall be required to compensate
him for the eight hour holiday pro rata allowance due him for Feb-
ruary 22, 1958."
OPINION OF BOARD:
This is a claim for eight hours' compensation at the pro rata rate for a
holiday which fell on February 22, 1958, and for automobile mileage allowance for
February and March, 1958, based upon the alleged violation by the Carrier of the
Agreement between the parties when it failed to maintain, on a permanent basis,
the rest day relief assignment at Osawatomie, Kansas, now being worked by the
claimant, an extra employe.
The record before the Board shows that on February 4, 1958, the Superintendent of Communications notified all concerned that effective with the close of business Tuesday, February 11, 1958, the late night chief and rest day relief positions
in "JN" Relay Office at Osawatomie were abolished.
SQA 3oS
AWARD N0. 56
DOO,KET N0. 56
(Case 2802) PAGE 2
The incumbent of the rest day relief position, who is the claimant here,
on the date the abolishment of his position became effective notified the Superintendent of Communications and the Local Chairman of the Telegraphers' Organization that by reason of the abolishment of his position he desired to revert to
the extra board and protect the four days of rest day relief work remaining at
Osawatomie and one day of rest day relief work at Kansas City. Under the provisions of Rule 13(d) the claimant had the right to revert to the extra board.
The Organization is here contending that the rest day relief position then
being fLlled by the claimant here was not abolished, but the relief assignment was
merely changed from five days of work at Osawatomie to a position with four days
of work at Osawatomie and one day of work at Kansas City, a point some 62 miles
distant. They rely upon Rule 8, Section 2(e-4) in support of their claim. The
Carrier referred the Board to Rule 8, Section 2(e), titled "Regular Relief Assignment" and pointed out to the Board that said rule does not obligate the Carrier to establish a regular assignment with five days of work unless the two
rest days can be consecutive and then referred the Board to other provisions of
Rule 8, Section 2, which they contend are not mandatory but permissive rules for
the establishment of regular rest day relief positions under varying conditions
set forth therein. The Carrier further states that no regular rest day relief
position was established with four days of work at Osawatomie and one day of
rest day relief work at Kansas City because the rest days available could not be
consecutive. These rest days could be protected by available extra employes.
Based upon the facts which are not disputed in the record, we are forced
to the conclusion that the claimant did not, on February 22, 1958, occupy a regular rest day relief position as alleged by the Organization but, on the other hand,
had, by his own action, reverted to the extra board and was working as an extra
man. Not being a regularly assigned employe, he is not entitled to eight hours`
holiday pro rata allowance under the provisions of Article II of the Agreement
of August 21, 1954.
Having found that the regular rest day relief position at Osawatomie was
properly abolished by the Carrier on February 11, 1958, and that it was not mandatory upon the Carrier to establish a regular relief assignment with nonconsecutive rest days, and not desiring to take advantage of other permissive provisions
of Rule 8, Section 2, concerning the various ways in which rest day relief positions could be established, we have come to the conclusion that rules relating
to free transportation for necessary travel are not applicable in the absence of -
the establishment by the Carrier of a regular relief position as here contended
by the Organization was done.
For these reasons the instant claim is not supported by the provisions of
the applicable agreement as applied to the facts.
AWARD N0. 56 PAGE 3
DOCKET N0. 56
(Case 2802)
FINDINGS: Carrier did not violate the Agreement.
AWARD
Claim denied.
SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 305
s/ Donald F. McMahon - Chairman
Donald F. McMahon - Chairman
s/ R. K. Anthis s/ G. W. Johnson
R. K. Anthis -Organization Member G. W. Johnson - Carrier Member
St. Louis, Missouri
September 23, 1960
File 380-1865