SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 2, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'

DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. (Firemen and Oilers)

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

1-That the Carrier violated provisions of Rule 11, particularly Paragraph (a) thereof when they failed to show classification of employes listed in Subdivision B of controlling Firemen and Oilers' Agreement dated September 1, 1949 on 1955 seniority rosters at all points on the system.

2-That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to make up seniority rosters in accordance with Rule 11, Paragraph (a) of controlling agreement dated September 1, 1949 and subsequently amended.

Exhibit B-Seniority Exhibit C-Seniority Exhibit D-Seniority Exhibit E-Seniority

Exhibit F-Seniority Exhibit G-Seniority Exhibit H-Seniority Exhibit I-Seniority Exhibit J-Seniority Exhibit K-Seniority

Roster-Hoisington, Kansas Colorado Division Roster-Colorado Division Roster-McGehee, Arkansas Roster-Ewing Avenue Roster-Hoisington, Kansas Colorado Division Roster-Alexandria, La. Roster-Pinckneyville, Ill. Roster-Bush, Illinois Roster-Gale, Illinois Roster-Dupo, Illinois Roster--St. Louis, Mo. Ewing Avenue Roster-Poplar Bluff, Mo.

--January 1, 1940

-January 1, 1941

-January 1, 1942

-January 1, 1948

--January 1, 1951

-January 1, 1952

-January 1, 1952

-January 1, 1952

-January 1, 1952

-January 1, 1953

Your attention is also directed to the following language contained in Rule 10 (c) of the laborers' agreement:

"Rule 10. (c) Laborers will not be considered as permanently employed and their seniority rights will not apply until they have been continuously employed for six (6) months."

Here again Laborers are recognized as a single Classification.

In view of the foregoing, we think it must be conclusive there are no separate classifications within the classification of laborers, and that the classification now being shown on all seniority rosters of employes subject to the laborers' agreement is the only correct way it can be shown.

There is no basis for the request of the employes and it should be denied.

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 parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.

Rule 11-Seniority Rosters, is as follows:

"(a) Seniority rosters of employes of each subdivision, by seniority districts, at each point will be separately compiled and show name, classification, date of employment and date of promotion.

(b) Seniority rights of employes covered by this agreement will be confined to point employed and to the following subdivisions:

(A) Stationary Engineers

Stationary Firemen

Power Plant Laborers

(B) Fire Knockers

Fire Builders

Flue Blowers and Borers

Engine Watchmen

Sand Dryers

Rod Cup Fillers

Supplymen

Acetylene Generator Attendants

Inside Hostler Attendants

Tractor Operators

Gang Leaders

(C) Back Shop Laborers

Repair Track Laborers

Roundhouse Laborers

Front End and Fire Box Blackers

Engine Wipers and Washers

(c) Rosters will be compiled and posted as of January 1 each year and copy furnished local and general committees. Seniority dates will be considered permanently established if not protested within ninety (90) days from time of first posting.

(d) Employes promoted or transferred from one subdivision to another as established in Section B, shall retain their seniority in the

subdivision from which promoted or transferred. In event of displacement for any cause in a position to which he may have been promoted or transferred after having exhausted his rights in the particular class in which employed, may then exercise his rights over junior employes in the class from which promoted or transferred."

The dispute herein concerns the manner of preparing seniority rosters. In an effort to have some uniformity the carrier prepared on January 1, 1955 seniority rosters which did not designate the particular classification for each employe but listed the alphabetical designation used in the agreement. Thus, although there are some eleven (11) different classifications in part (B) they are all shown on the roster by their alphabetical designation. This is a deviation from past practice. Previous rosters included the classification title or designation, which was approved by and satisfactory with the organization. Although it appears from the record that the carrier unilaterally made the change in good faith, it nevertheless appears that the change is not satisfactory with the organization. It seems to us that such a change is properly a matter for collective bargaining. The rule clearly states that the roster will show classification. We think the parties meant by "Classification" the classification titles or job titles enumerated in the rule. We find that the carrier has breached the agreement by eliminating the classification from the seniority rosters.

AWARD