DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: (a) That under the current agreement and particularly Rule 43 the work of riding switch engines for the purpose of coupling air hoses in connection with switching passenger cars is Carmen Helpers' work and not that of Coach Cleaners and extra locomotive firemen.
account Coach Cleaners and extra firemen being improperly assigned to perform Carmen Helpers' work on January 9, 10, 11, 13, 16; February 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 28, and March 1, 1951.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Union Terminal Company of Dallas, Texas, is a passenger train station handling only passenger car equipment for the eight proprietor railroads running in and out of this terminal, whereby three carmen helpers are regularly assigned as hose couplers to ride switch, engines and couple air hose in connection with switching cars, the three carmen helpers, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, assigned are as follows:
to use other than helpers to fill positions of helper when not on duty and to fill helper vacancies under the circumstances involved in the instant case.
It is noted the employes claim penalty rate in this case. We submit that if claim has merit, which we deny, only pro-rata-rate would be due as Awards of the Second and Third Divisions have consistently held in such circumstances, where claim is sustained, it is payable only at pro-rata rate.
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 dispute presents the question, is the work of riding switch engines in the Dallas Terminal for the purpose of coupling and uncoupling air hoses in connection with switching passenger cars exclusively work of carmen helpers? If it is, then of course carrier should cease its practice ,Of having coach cleaners, extra locomotive firemen or any other class of employes, except carmen helpers, do it. If not, then of course the practice of having them do it does not violate the carmen helpers' rights.
The work is not specifically covered by any cited rule as carmen helpers' work and, if covered, must come under the following general language of Rule 43 of the parties' controlling agreement:
This language is subject to the principle that carrier can continue to have work covered thereby performed in the same manner as it was customary to have it done at the time the agreement, of which the rule is a part, became effective. That is, such language does not abrogate past practices.
It appears that the work here in question has not been exclusively performed by one class of employes. In this respect apparently carmen helpers performed it all from July 6, 1948 to January 9, 1951 but that fact would not change the rule and give carmen helpers the exclusive right thereto. As written the rule permits carrier to continue its past practice of having different classes of employes do this work in connection with the switching of passenger cars. We therefore find the claim to be without merit.