The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addi

tion Referee Howard A. Johnson when the award was rendered.


PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 106, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'

DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Carmen)





















EMPLOYES STATEMENT OF FACTS: The above named car cleaners, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, are employed by the Washington Terminal Company at Washington, D. C. hereinafter referred to as the carrier. Claimants being assigned to the 3:00 P. M. to 11:00 P. M. shift at Union Station.


On June 6, 1958 there was a 63 employe force reduction of car cleaners resulting from the installation of a car washing machine that directly affected the claimants in that they were not left with enough seniority to remain on their regular 7:00 A. M. to 3:00 P. M. shift, thereby resulting in the claimants being required to change to the 3:00 P. M. to 11:00 P. M. shift in order to remain in service.


POSITION OF EMPLOYES: The force was reduced at the direction of the carrier as the result of the automatic car washing machine replacing car



3854-11 348





The carrier submits therefore that the claim of the employes is without merit and 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.




This claim is identical with that involved in Award 3853 and necessitates the same conclusion.









Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 2nd day of November, 1961.



The majority is in error in stating that the claimants' request for a change of shift constitutes an exception to the exception stated in the rules for changes of shift at an employe's request. It will be noted that the majority did not quote the applicable rule, namely Rule 12, which states:




and therefore apparently overlooked the key word "exchanged" in the exception. The claimants did not exchange shifts with other employes but were forced to displace junior employes on other shifts and should have been compensated at the overtime rate for the first shift of the change.




                      T. E. Losey

                      E. J. McDermott

                      James B. Zink