DISPUTE.-(a) That work now assigned to J. J. Armstrong, advanced machinist helper, Little Rock, Arkansas, back shops, on "Throttle box and throttle rigging job" is in violation of Rule 52. (b) That a machinist be assigned to such work.
JOINT STATEMENT OF FACTS.-Advanced machinist helpers are assigned to the throttle box and throttle rigging work, North Little Rock, Arkansas, shops.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES.-It is the position of the committee that this work belongs to the machinists under Rule 52 of the agreement, having been generally recognized as machinists' work, and that Rule 53. underlined, which covers advanced helpers, does not give the advanced helpers this work as alleged by the company.
In further support of the claim that this is machinists' work, we call your attention to the fact that it is performed by machinists at many points on the Missouri Pacific Railroad.
POSITION OF CARRIER.-This practice has been in existence at Little Rock, Arkansas, back shops for the past twelve years. The wording of the agreement (Machinists' Special Rules), Rules 52, Classification of Work, and 53, Machinists' Helpers, has not been changed during that time.
It is true that we have machinists who perform this work at several points; as we do not have sufficient work at such points to have advanced helpers performing this class, we give it to the machinists, as well as other work listed as advanced helpers' work, but where we have sufficient work of this nature, advanced helpers are used.
I J. J. Armstrong has been in the service since January 20, 11,423, and has been doing this work all through the years. We feel in the wording of the agreement we are within our rights to hold the work as in the past.
FINDINGS.-The Second Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier and employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934.
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing, and the hearing was held May 27, 1935.
There exists an agreement between the parties to the dispute dated November 1, 1934, from which the above-mentioned rules are cited.
Subsequent to the hearing and before an award was rendered, parties to the dispute jointly requested the privilege of withdrawing the same, stating that a satisfactory settlement had been reached.