The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee J. Glenn Donaldson when the award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 101, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (ELECTRICAL WORKERS)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The carrier employes at the King Street Station, electrical apprentices. The electrical apprentices at King Street Station cannot get complete training at that point which prompted the organization to request that the carrier transfer apprentices to other points on the system for complete training. The carrier's Mr. J. Robinson under date of January 20, 1954 advised Local Chairman W. L. Shafer that he had been informed that a representative of the chief mechanical officer, Great Northern Railway, would be at Seattle the first week of March to arrange for the transfer of the first apprentice, a copy of which is submitted herewith and identified as Exhibit A. The advice given in the letter of January 20, 1954 did not materialize and subsequent thereto the carrier officials designated to handle such affairs refused to transfer electrical apprentices to other points for complete training.
The agreement effective September 1, 1949, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that under the cover page of the agreement reading:
or King Street Passenger Station employes is concerned to King Street Passenger Station employes only for determining the ratio at that point and King Street apprentices are not included in determining the Cascade Division ratio.
The fact the King Street employes have elected to be represented by the officers of System Federation No. 101 and that they are covered as to their rates of pay and working conditions does not make them Great Northern employes any more than it confers rights on Great Northern employes to be considered as King Street employes. There is no reason why if they so desired the employes at King Street, still represented by the officers of System Federation No. 101 could not have a separate agreement. The only reason they do not is a matter of economy on their part due to their small number.
The carrier believes that past practice existing for over thirty years is clearly evidential of the fact that the intent of the agreement is and always has been to confine Great Northern apprentices to the Great Northern and King Street apprentices to King Street since, while apprentice training rules have appeared in the numerous agreements negotiated during those years, never has an apprentice been transferred for training from King Street to the Great Northern or vice versa.
There is, of course, no reason why negotiations leading to the establishment of such a practice could not be entered into and, if agreement reached, such transfers could be made, but the carrier holds that until or unless such an agreement is reached, it is under no obligation to make such transfers.
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.
It is claimed that under the current agreement between the Great Northern Railway Company and the Organization, the electrical apprentices at King Street Station are entitled to be transferred to other points in the system in order to be given complete experience in the trade. Complaint is made that the carrier is not so transferring apprentices at this point. That such is their contract right under Rule 30(b) seems indisputable. There is nothing in Rule 30 (b) that signifies anything but general application to all employes covered by the agreement and the agreement expressly includes employes of King Street Station. Alleged past practice to the effect that such transfers were never made cannot stand in the way of a clear, unambiguous article of agreement such as we have present in this case.
Carrier points out that King Street Station at Seattle, Washington, is a joint terminal facility owned equally by the Great Northern Railway Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company. Insufficient facts are present to determine beyond question the true status of the relationship. However, it is admitted that the Station is not a corporate entity. It is stated that it operates as a separate property, issuing its own pay checks and handling its own accounting. The Superintendent in charge reports directly to the General Managers of the respective owners, each General Manager being in charge for six months of the year.
It would not be unreasonable from the facts appearing to presume that the Great Northern Railway Company occupies the status of a partner in operating the King Street Station, or, is one of two parties engaged in a 1947-5 385