The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Adolph E. Wenke when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 96, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Carmen)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1. That effective June 11, 1945, the regularly assigned hours of employes of the Carmen's Craft were changed in violation of the current agreement from ending at 3:00 P. M., with an allowance of 20 minutes for lunch with pay, to ending at 3:30 P. M., with 30 minutes for lunch without pay.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The carrier employed a force of about 45 carmen, 12 carmen helpers and 5 coach cleaners at Coxton, Pennsylvania, car shops, and for many years prior to June 11, 1945, the regularly assigned hours of said employes were from 7 A. M. to 3 P. M., eight consecutive hours, with an allowance of 20 minutes for lunch without deduction in pay.
On Sunday, June 10, 1945, the carrier posted a pencil notice on the bulletin board reading as follows:
This change in the time and length of the lunch period was effected by the carrier, without mutual agreement, or without consulting the duly authorized local committee or their representative for their concurrence in such change. This is substantiated by-
There is no difference between the case at South Easton and the case at Coxton with respect to the manner in which conference was held before assignment of lunch period to one-shift forces.
Under the circumstances herein set forth, the carrier maintains there has been no violation of any rule of the carmen's agreement and, for this reason, the claim in this case should be denied.
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.
Rule 2 of the parties' current agreement undoubtedly gives carrier authority to fix a lunch period without pay but provides, as a condition precedent to the right to exercise that authority, that the System Federation, through its proper representatives, be given a reasonable opportunity to mutually agree with the carrier as to the time when it should be taken and the length thereof. Of course, if no mutual agreement can be reached within a reasonable time after the opportunity therefor is given or if the representatives of the organization refuse to act, then a different situation arises but one with which we are not here concerned. However, for the carrier to proceed to exercise such authority without having given the proper representatives of the organization a reasonable opporunity to mutually agree with the carrier in regard to the time and length thereof, was in violation of the provisions of Rule 2.
Claim 1 should therefore be sustained. However, it appears that on June 6, 1947, the parties mutually agreed to a 30-minute lunch period and the time thereof, same to be effective as of June 7, 1947. Consequently, claim 2 (a) should be denied and 2 (b) limited accordingly.
Claim 1 sustained; claim 2 (a) denied; and claim 2 (b) sustained for the period from June 11, 1945, to June 6, 1947, inclusive.