JIM THOMAS, KING TART, WILL DOSS, WILL CRAIG, JAMES
H. CADE, DAN SMITH, SHADE STUCKEY, PEARLE G. CAN
NON, JOHN H. SIMMONS, RICHARD PEOPLE, LEE SHEALEY,
FRANK GARRETT, AARON HUNTER AND JESSE JONES
(Individuals)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: Claim of petitioners for reinstatement with seniority rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost from date of dismissal, for the alleged reason of reduction in forces and abolition of petitioners' jobs, until they are returned to service.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: Since November 8, 1951, to February 9, 1953, employes, who were employed by the Southern Railway Company as boiler maker helpers have had their services terminated, and their places substituted by boiler makers. Employes claim that the carrier's action is in violation of the agreement which governs the working conditions, rates of pay, etc., namely, agreement between Southern Railway Company, et al, and the international Brotherhood of Boilermaker, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, effective March 1, 1926, and amendments.
The employes further claim that there is available the same type of work, which they have always performed and which by agreement and tradition been designated as boilermaker helpers' work, now being performed by boilermakers, many with less seniority than boilermaker helpers.
Employes further allege that their complaint and grievances have been placed before the officials of the carrier for adjustment, as shown by
It became necessary at Birmingham to reduce expenses. Accordingly, expenses were reduced by laying off the men in the reverse order of seniority, i.e., the last man employed was the first laid off. This resulted in the claimants here involved being laid off. They have not been discharged.
Throughout the entire period that the program of conversion from steam to diesel-electric power has been in effect, the work of boilermakers and boilermaker helpers has continually decreased. In fact, it has decreased to such an extent that there is no longer any need for employing boilermakers and boilermaker helpers to the extent once employed. Work of the character previously assigned to and performed by them has disappeared with the result there are simply no jobs for them.
Under the Transportation Act, railroads are admonished by law with operating in an efficient and economical manner. They cannot so operate if required to employ forces not needed. Claim here before the Board is nothing more than an effort to force the carrier to employ unnecessary personnel. In these circumstances, a denial award is clearly in order if the Board should take jurisdiction and attempt to pass upon the merits of the dispute.
FINDINGS: The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all 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.
The evidence of record shows that this case has not been handled in accordance with Section 3, First (i), of the Railway Labor Act and the terms of the current agreement.
The rules of procedure of the National Railroad Adjustment Board require that "No petition shall be considered by any division of the Board unless the subject matter has been handled in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934."
This Division has previously held in Awards Nos. 514, 1275, 1680, 1718, 1720, 1721, 1725, and 1746: