The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee Howard A. Johnson when award was rendered.
SYSTEM FEDERATION, NO. 42, RAILWAY EMPLOYES'
DEPARTMENT, A. F. of L. - C. I. O. (Carmen)
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the carrier, employed the above named carmen helpers (car oilers and packers), herein after referred to as the claimants, as car oilers and packers at the points as indicated below. They were furloughed in the following order:
The work formerly performed by the affected employes has now been assigned to carmen (car inspectors).
This claim has been progressed successively on appeal, as prescribed under the controlling agreement, up to and including the highest designated officer with whom disputes are to be handled and carrier has consistently declined to make adjustment.
The agreement, effective November 11, 1960, as amended and reprinted January 1958, is controlling.
POSITION OF EMPLOYES: It is the position of the employes that car oiling and box packing is contractual work which belongs to carmen helpers. In support of this position, we quote below Rule 404:
Revised, Effective September 15, 1943
Carmen Helpers
In an attempt to distort and nullify the intent of the rule, carrier states in a letter dated October 7, 1960 that the current agreement does not give carmen helpers the exclusive right to car oilers and packers' work.
In Award No. 3062, the carrier (ACL Railroad) contended that the car oiling and packing was work belonging exclusively to carmen helpers. They
Thus, in these three awards, carrier finds support in the age old recognition that lower rated work may be assigned to higher rated positions, provided the higher rate of pay is maintained.
In adjusting its forces, carrier has relied upon the Board's consistent decisions involving disputes both similar and identical to this case. To rule in favor of the employes and now find that those decisions and interpretations have a different meaning would certainly burden the carrier with a financial payment which it would feel most unjust.
Complaint is here made because forty-one (41) carman helper positions were abolished within a relatively short period. The normal and ordinary meaning of the agreement rules was not changed or modified by reason of the number of positions abolished. Carrier emphatically denies that its action constituted a violation of the agreement and has conclusively shown that the issue involved in this dispute has been decided previously by this Board in many, many awards. To again bring the issue up apparently is nothing more than an attempt on the part of the employes to get the Division to reverse itself. There is no merit to the claim of the employes and it should be declined.
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 facts and applicable rules here are not essentially different from those in Award 1380, rendered by this Division without a referee, and in Awards 3261, 3263, 3495, 3508, 3509, 3510, 3511, 3603, 3644, and numerous others, which constitute a line of precedents so numerous and well established as to necessitate a denial award.
An award is only as good as the reasoning upon which it is based. There is no reason given for the present negative award except so-called precedent 4110--8 3S4
awards. Unfortunately those awards, and likewise the instant award, ignored the primary function of the Adjustment Board, namely to adjust disputes in accordance with the terms of the agreement existing between the parties to said dispute. Upholding the carrier in its unilateral change in the working conditions set forth in the governing agreement is repugnant to the purposes and command of the Railway Labor Act and constitutes an encroachment into the field of collective bargaining. The Division should have held that the carrier's failure to give notice of the desired instant change and negotiate in reference thereto with the statutory representative, as provided by the Railway Labor Act, left the collective agreement in force and required an affirmative award. See Order of Railway Telegraphers vs. Railway Express Agency, 64 S.Ct. 582.