DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES.-That seniority of J. A. Hudgins be changed from 8-30-29 to 11-28-22, the original date of his employment as a carman.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS.-J. A. Hudgins was employed 11-28-22 as a carman at 630, the minimum first class rate. He got a 1¢ raise the same as all first class men; then on April 1, 1929, he was reclassified and given a 3¢ raise when he was found working on rip track and classed as second class man and still compelled to take a helper and complete any car assigned to repair. He claims the company had no right to reclassify him and he should be given his seniority (late from the day he commenced work 11-29-22.
POSITION OF EMPLOYE, S.-J. A. Hudgins, having established his seniority as a carman 11-28-22, should retain that seniority as he did all classes of repairs. There was no rule in the agreement existing at that time that provided for loss of seniority when working 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 classification, 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 clasp 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 second class rate of 67¢, and the air brake men and inspectors were given 4¢, or 680, minimum first class rate.
The attention of the Board is directed to Exhibit A, particularly the joint letter of January 5, 1935, in which it is agreed that the seniority date of Mr. Hudgins, viz, August 20, 1929, is O.K., or correct.
The carrier contends the history of this case indicates that Mr. Hudgins was not made a first class carman until August 20, 1929, and further contends that the joint letter of January 5, 1935, constitutes an agreement disposing of this case, and which your Board has no 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
"SEO. 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 agreements 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.