The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Lloyd H. Bailer when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 91, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A.F.L.-C.I.O. (Carmen)
DISPUTE: CLAIM OF EMPLOYES: 1-That under the terms of the current agreement the rights of carmen helpers to perform carmen helpers' work was unjustly destroyed and they supplanted by carmen on April 7, 1958 at Nashville (Radnor) Tennessee and subsequent thereto in the performance of such work.
2-That accordingly the Carrier be ordered to restore carmen helpers' positions to carmen helpers and compensate those furloughed, for 8 hours each day carmen perform oiler and other helpers' duties subsequent to the aforesaid date.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: On March 27, 1958 the carrier at their Nashville (Radnor) Tennessee Shops, posted bulletins Nos. 35 and 36, abolishing jobs and furloughing 46 carmen helpers, copies of these bulletins. are submitted herewith identified as Exhibits A and A-1.
Beginning at the start of the day on April 7, 1958, all positions formerly held by carmen helpers, as well as all duties mentioned in the Helpers' Classification of Work Rule 106, were assigned to carmen, including oiling, packing,, brassing of cars, etc.
This dispute has been handled with the carrier up to and including thehighest officer designated by the company to handle such disputes, without thedesired results being obtained.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is submitted that under the terms of Rule 106, reading, in part-
In its interpretation of P&LE Rule 28 (which is practically identical to L&N Rule 106), it was the findings of the Second Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, that the P&LE Railroad Company and The Lake Erie Eastern Railroad Company had not violated the agreement in assigning the work of "oiling and packing" to Carmen.
Carrier asserts that employes have recognized the established practice in effect on its property - at certain locations - for many years of having Carmen perform the work of car oiling and other helpers' duties; and thus, by their acquiescance without protest, acknowledge that mechanics may perform any of the duties assigned to helpers. In these circumstances, there is no merit to the claim and it should, therefore, be denied.
The dispute involved in this case is similar to that in docket 3060 L&N-CM now before this Division.
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.
Award 3263 decided the same question under the controlling agreement between the subject parties. That award must be deemed to govern the instant dispute.
We agree that Award 3263 arose under the instant agreement between the same parties as here involved, however, as pointed out in the dissent to Award 3263 the awards there followed did not involve the governing agreement and therefore were not in point. The Arbitration Case cited (The Pennsylvania Railroad Company vs. United Railroad Workers Division, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO) was determined by the author of the instant award and, while it may be flattering to the author to have it cited, it likewise had no bearing on the dispute involved in Award 3263.
Rule 26(a) of the controlling agreement prescribes that "When it becomes necessary to reduce expenses, the force at any point or in any department shall be reduced, seniority as per Rule 29 to govern * * * ." If the carrier desired to make a change in this agreement rule it should have served notice showing the proposed change and handled same in accordance with the requirements of the Railway Labor Act, but the carrier did not observe the right of the representatives of the whole unit to be notified and dealt with concerning a matter which not only destroys rights of the instant claimants but may provide a leverage for taking away other advantages of the collective agreement. (Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 64 Sup. Court Rep. 582).
We realize that it takes very little time and no effort to simply state that a previous award governs, however the purpose of calling in a neutral is to have each case decided on its merits under the governing agreement. An award of this Board that ignores the collective bargaining agreement between the parties to any dispute is not valid regardless of the number of previous awards cited. The agreement requires that the claimants be made whole. To not do so makes a mockery of the collective bargaining processes under the Railway Labor Act.