THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY
COMPANY-EASTERN LINES
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: That under the current agreement it is improper to assign Carmen helpers to inspect cars for worn out journal brasses, cut journals and waste grabs, and that accordingly carrier be ordered to discontinue the assignment of Carmen helpers to perform said work.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: At Argentine, Kansas, the carrier reglarly assigns car inspectors to the inspection of cars in the train yard, except the inside inspection of journal boxes for defects. This is affirmed by the copy submitted of statement dated August 20, 1948, and signed by thirteen car inspectors, identified as Exhibit A.
The carrier also regularly assigns at this point in the train yard Carmen helpers (oilers) to the inspection of inside of journal boxes for defects in addition to the packing and oiling of journal boxes. This is affirmed by copy of statement submitted, dated August 20, 1948, signed by nineteen oilers, identified as Exhibit B.
The agreement effective August 1, 1945, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that the inspection of such fundamental mechanical parts of cars as journals, journal brasses and the inspection for waste grabs is inherently and contractually the duty of mechanics and not the duty of helpers.
It is plainly to be seen from a careful collective examination of the first paragraph of Rule 29, which specifically states-
relation to the total number of cars moving through that terminal, which require the repacking of journal boxes or the removal and replacing of journal bearings in journal boxes in the trainyard.
The fact that this carrier does not permit carmen helpers (car oilers) to "bad order" cars and does not permit carmen helpers (car oilers) to carry bad order cards or to attach bard order cards to cars should be evidence enough of the "non-inspection" status of carmen helpers (car oilers).
While the negotiations were being conducted with the representatives of the six organizations representing System Federation No. 97 of the Railway Employes' Department, A. F. of L., including the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America, which culminated in the collective bargaining agreement now in effect and which has been in effect since August 1, 1945, there was present a former general chairman (for the Santa Fe System) of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America. Prior to this man's appointment as an organization representative he had served a freight carman apprenticeship, subsequent to which he had had eleven years' experience as a practical carman in the service of this carrier. He could not have been otherwise than thoroughly famifiar with the methods and practices followed in car department work on the lines of this carrier.
It is significant therefore, that in the adoption of our present rules and in particular shop crafts' Rules Nos. 102, 104 and 106 (c), which are quoted in full in the carrier's statement of facts, that no exception was taken during the rules negotiations leading to the adoption of the current agreement to the practices then as now being followed insofar as the duties and responsibilities of carmen helpers (car oilers) are concerned.
It must be obvious, that the claim which forms the basis for the instant dispute, is a matter for collective bargaining between parties to the current agreement and that the instant dispute amounts to nothing more or less than an attempt by the carmen's organization to secure through the medium of an award of the Second Division what it should endeavor to secure through the orderly procedure of collective bargaining.
It is significant too, that the duties and responsibilities of carmen helpers and carmen helpers (car oilers) vary to a considerable extent on different railroads. This is not an unusual condition, but a condition which is only the natural result of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining agreements on the lines of this carrier, with the exception of the so-called National Agreement, which came into being during the federal control of the railroads during the period of World War I, have resulted from across the table bargaining by the representatives of the carrier and labor organizations representing the employes of the various classes on the lines of this particular carrier.
As evidence that this carrier's practice does not represent a singular deviation from the practice on other railroads in the western territory, it has been ascertained that the duties and responsibilities of carman helpers (car oilers) on the lines of the carrier are no diffeernt than that on thirtynine of the fifty-eight other railroads in contiguous territory.
It is the position of this carrier that the instant dispute seeks to impose an unjustified, wasteful and uneconomical restraint on the carrier in the assignment of work to carmen helpers (car oilers).
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. 1396-9 97
This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.
* This claim is identical with that submitted by the same parties in Award No. 1395, Docket No. 1324, except the point involved is Argentine, Kansas. The applicable rules are identical and the circumstances appearing are comparable with those in that docket. They will not be repeated. It is sufficient to say that they present the same question for decision concededly controlled by that award.
For the reasons stated in Award No. 1395, Docket No. 1324, the claim should be and is sustainend as per findings therein, except that they shall have application at Argentine, Kansas.
We are impelled to dissent on the awards identified above because if there were ever two cases in which the rules involved when applied to the facts and circumstances certainly required negative awards, these two were and are such cases.
The record of both cases summarized briefly shows that "car oilers" (helpers) at Richmond, California and at Argentine, Kansas, have been in existence since December 1, 1921. They were also in existence at the time the current agreement between the parties became effective on August 1, 1945. The duties and responsibilities of these employes-then and now-have been in connection with the cleaning of journals and the oiling, brassing and packing of journal boxes, all of which of necessity requires looking into the interior of journal boxes by those having such duties and responsibilities to determine whether, for instance, rebrassing is needed, or the packing dry to the extent of needing oiling, or the packing is out of place and should be repacked, or the packing is old and should be renewed. Inspections for cut or rough journals have never been required of "car oilers."
This had been the situation in respect to the work of "car oilers" under earlier agreements and was the situation when, in 1943, the petitioning organization in these cases became the accredited representative of the class or craft of employes here involved. This situation also was well known to the parties negotiating the current agreement effective August 1, 1945, which they recognized by adopting rules containing the following as capable of embracing and covering work performed traditionally by "car oilers" for twenty-five years, more or less, for their employer:
Substantial proof was not produced in connection with the proceedings before this Division by the employes to show that the duties and responsibilities of the "car oilers" had been changed since the present agreement had become effective or that the carrier had violated any rule of the said agreement in respect to the work required of and performed by the "car oilers;" and to restrict the work of "car oilers", as the employes contend this work should be restricted, would simply be adding to the rules involved or writing a new rule which is not within the jurisdiction of this Division.
The position of the employes in these two cases would seem to be a matter of negotiation between the parties and beyond the authority of this Division to order the change requested by the said employes.