DISPUTE: CLAIM OF E:AIPLOYES.-That seniority of A. J. Mitchell be changed from April 1, 19'29, to September 14, 1922, the original date of his employment as a carman.
E2VIPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS.-A. J. Miteliell was employed September 14, 1922, as a carman at 630, the minimum first class, rate. December 1, 7926, he was given a 2¢ increase, or 65¢ ; later on he got a 1¢ increase, or 66¢. On April 1, 1929, he was given 3¢ increase, or 69¢, and started his first class date, when he had been getting 2'.¢ above the first class minimum rate, furnished a helper and completed any car assigned to heavy- or light.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES.-A. J. Mitchell having established his seniority as a carman October 9, 1922, should retain that seniority as he did all classes of work since he was employed and received more wages than the majority -of inspectors. There was no rule in the agreement existing at that time that .provided for loss of seniority when workJtg on a lower class.
During the period in question there was an overlapping of rates among first and second class mechanics, as shown by the following elas"ification, Rule 51, Freight Carmen's Work, Special Rules-Classification and Rates
As shown by the above classification of work and rates, it was difficult for management and men to determine what class an employe belonged in for the reason that they were performing similar work. This fact is further substantiated by Exhibit B, which is a copy of a letter from the general mechanical superintendent.
On April 1, 1929, an increase of 4¢ was given first class men and 3¢ to second class men. All employes found working on repair track at that time, except air brake men, were reclassified as second class men and given the maximum
The carrier contends the history of this case indicates that Mr. Mitchell's seniority date of April 1, 1929, as a first class freight carman is correct, and further contends that the joint letter made as result of check of records and signed by the general chairman and the master mechanic on January 5, 1935, constitutes an agreement which the Board is without authority to set aside.
FINDINGS.-The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that
The carrier or carriers and the employe or employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employe 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 waived right of appearance at hearing thereon.The Railway Labor Act (as approved June 21, 1934), among its many provisions, prescribes
"SEC. 2. * * * (4) to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions; (5) to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agicements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions."
"SECOND. All disputes between a carrier or carriers and its or their employes shall be considered, and, if possible, decided, with all expedition, in conference between representatives designated and authorized so to confer, respectively, by the carrier or carriers and by the employes thereof interested in the dispute."
This dispute was handled in accordance with the above provisions of the amended Railway Labor Act and properly settled between the duly authorized representatives of the employes and the carrier.