SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 97, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Sheet Metal Workers)
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY
COMPANY (Coast Lines)
from home station over night, which meets the requirements and intent of Rule 13, it is difficult to attempt to visualize the reasoning of the complainant organization.
When the referred to basis of payment was changed-August 1, 1949water service department forces consisted of:
Abandonment of the Arizona division as such-also effective August 1, 1949-resulted in 3 men being absorbed ,by the enlarged Los Angeles division.
Despite the fact the 40-hour work week-established September 1, 1949reduced the regular work days by 20% (equivalent to 19.8 full time employes), the carrier has fully met its needs with the reduced employe output without increasing its over-all forces and with very little overtime service required or performed.
The instant claim lacks support of the rules agreement and merits nothing other than a denying award, and we trust your Honorable Board will so decide the issue.
The carrier is uninformed as to the arguments the organization will advance in their ex parte submission and accordingly reserves the right to submit such additional facts, evidence and argument as it may conclude are required in replying to the organization's ex parte submission or any subsequent oral arguments or briefs placed by the organization in this dispute.
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.
This dispute is presented here by the Sheet Metal Workers of System Federation No. 97, in behalf of twenty-eight (28') employes in carrier's water service department. The organization contends carrier improperly changed these employes, effective as of August 1, 1949, from a monthly salary to an hourly rate of pay.
It is first claimed that the jurisdiction of this Division, as fixed by the Railway Labor Act, does not include water service employes. No place in 1740-15 349
the Act are water service employes referred to as a class of employes of which any one of the four Divisions has exclusive jurisdiction. It is true, as carrier contends, that solely because these claimants are represented by the Sheet Metal Workers' organization, a class of employes of which the Act gives this Division jurisdiction, would not give this Division jurisdiction of their disputes. Jurisdiction of the several Divisions is not based on representation. We must therefore look to the Agreement to ascertain just what are the duties of a sheet metal worker and whether or not these claimants come within that class.
There are undoubtedly many employes in the Water Service Department of this carrier who are performing this type of work.
As stated in the preamble of the parties agreement: "This Agreement shall apply to employes of these Carriers who perform work outlined herein in the . . . Water Service Department under jurisdiction of the Operating Department."
Carrier in its presentation refers to claimants as employes of the Sheet Metal Workers' craft working in its Water Service Department and this we think is their proper classification. This Division, having jurisdiction of Sheet Metal Workers' disputes, has jurisdiction of these claimants and authority to settle their disputes. See section 3. First (h) of The Railway Labor Act, "Second Division."
Carrier next contends the claim was not appealed here within the time fixed by the parties' agreement. Carrier says its highest designated officer to consider appeals denied this claim on June 5, 1950 and that no further action was taken thereon until this appeal was lodged here by a notice of intention to appeal dated March 17, 1953.
Rule 33 (b) of the parties' agreement provides in part: "Should the employe himself or the General Chairman be dissatisfied with the decision rendered by the highest designated officer and further appeal is desired, the case may then be handled in accordance with the Railway Labor Act, providing such appeal is made within ninety (90) days after date of decision."
It is not the provisions of this rule that gives claimants the right of appeal to this Division of the Board, but the provisions of Sec. 3 First (i) of the Railway Labor Act. Consequently any period of delay, no matter how long, in handling a grievance or dispute by appeal to this Board, after it has been denied by the highest officer on the property authorized to handle it, will not, in the absence of a showing by carrier that it has been or will be injured, damaged or prejudiced thereby, defeat it as there is no provision in the Railway Labor Act limiting the time within which it must be done. However, the Act contemplates that claims and disputes coming under its provisions shall be handled in a prompt and orderly manner and until Congress acts in regard thereto there is nothing in the Act to prevent the parties from entering into a reasonable provision for that purpose. We think the ninety-day provision in the parties' agreement provides a reasonable length of time in which to do so. In view of the foregoing it is apparent 1740-16 350
(The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addi
tion Referee Adolph E. Wenke when the interpretation was rendered.)
NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Railway Employes' Department, A.F.of L. (Sheet Metal Workers)
NAME OF CARRIER: The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company-Coast Lines-
Upon application of the representatives of the employes involved in the above award that this Division interpret the same in light of the dispute between the parties as to its meaning, as provided by Section 3, First (m) of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934, the following interpretation is made:
Pursuant to the foregoing the organization presents the following question
As phrased, the answer to the question is "No." The dismissal of the appeal had the effect of affirming the carrier's denial of the claim made on the property. However, since the award did not determine the issue presented on its merits the words "without prejudice" were added to preclude any contention on the part of the carrier that an adjudication had been made on the merits of the issues in case the situation complained of continued after the carrier's denial thereof was made or if a similar situation developed at any time in the future and, in either case, a claim was made based thereon. It was not intended by the use of the words "without prejudice" to thereby permit the identical claim, that is, a claim for the identical period of time as was denied on the property, to be again made.