While Mr. Taylor carefully omitted to state that these two points were to be considered one point "for the purposes of Rule 25" it is obvious that the whole basis of the present claim is founded on this merging of rosters. Without such a merger there could be no excuse for claiming that the carrier could not change bulletin hours according to the requirements of the service. Certainly this is a claim "involving seniority rosters based on this consolidation of rosters". The progressing of this claim is a breach of faith and a violation of paragraph 3 of the very agreement on which the employes rely.
A similar claim involving the same parties and the same rules was denied by this Division in Award 1153,.Docket 1087. The same principal was involved in Awards 876 and 917. In Award 1241 the Findings read-
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 gist of controversy is that the carrier acted in violation of the rules in establishing a single shift at East Somerville enginehouse with different hours than the comparable day shift at the New Terminal enginehouse. The charge of "lap shift" made by claimants, rests on the premise that the two enginehouses involved constitute a single point for all purposes, and in particular, for the purposes of Rule 2, Starting Time. Such premise would seem unsupported by the record.
Prior to the agreement of September 17, 1946, the two enginehouses were separate points. All that was accomplished by such agreement was the con- 1320-8
solidation of seniority rosters into one roster with seniority dates and positions as they appeared by an attachment to the agreement. The first sentence of said agreement reads, in part, as follows
Rule 25, mentioned, concerns "seniority" and provides that the seniority of employes in each craft covered by the agreement of 1937 shall be confined to the point employed. It was to take care of a special problem, which arose after Rule 25 was negotiated and which necessitated handling of seniority in a manner in contravention thereof, that the agreement of September 17, 1946, came into being. To stretch it beyond its express intendment cannot be justified. This Division in Award No. 1153 has determined that the mere fact that employes concerned are on one seniority roster and under the general supervision of the same supervisor does not determine the question. And that is all that has been presented here in support of the contention for recognition of a single point.
Finding that, except for matters of seniority, the two enginehouses continue as separate points, we comment upon actions taken in changing the hours of work in the light of the pertinent rules.
Rule 2 recognizes the carrier's right to determine whether one, two, or three shifts are to be employed at a particular point. Claimants do not question carrier's action in this respect except in connection with the question hereinabove determined. The printed Interpretation of Rule 2 does not recognize the right argued by these claimants for a paid lunch period in a single shift operation. Rule 2 does assure opportunity to the employes' committee to confer with local officers in an effort to reach a mutual understanding in regard to starting time of any shift, based on actual service requirements, and the time and length of the lunch period. While tentative agreements were arrived at with the local committee in respect to starting time, such understandings were later cancelled by the controversy over the question of points and the effect of the agreement of September 17, 1946, upon the changes proposed.
The carrier's proposed changes in working periods were first presented to the local Federated Committee and other committee members representing the affected work point on March 16, 1948. A further joint meeting was held on March 30, 1948. The notice effecting a change in bulletined hours was posted April 3, effective April 6, 1948. This constitutes a reasonable opportunity to reach mutual understandings. In view of the nature of the claims asserted by the employes a longer period of negotiations would have served no purpose.