(i) That the Carrier is currently issuing bulletins of vacancies or new positions in a manner which is in violation of our agreement. Bulletins are presently listing the scheduled hours, regular work days and wage rate of position but do not specify particular work or operations to be performed within the respective craft
(2) That by failing to identify the work content of the advertised position the carrier is depriving the employes' of their effective seniority right to acquire the more desirable positions.
(3) This dispute has been handled with all carrier officers designated to handle grievances, including the highest designated officers, with the result that all of them have failed to adjust it.
(1) At the present time the carrier has in the Erwin Car Shop approximately fifty (50) carmen engaged in rebuilding open top hoppers. The majority of these positions have been bulletined as "General Carmens' duties at heavy repair car shop and such other carmans' duties as may be assigned." This manner of bulletining jobs as "General Carmen's duties" does not permit the senior employe to exercise his rights in that he has the same bid-in assignment as the junior employe and is more or less at the mercy of the foreman in charge as td where he is going to work
position advertised and to properly identify it as well as to specify the duties. The bulletins show in every respect all the information an employe needs to determine its desirability to him.
The Carrier has, in all respects, fully complied with the agreement and we respectfully request this Board to so find and deny the claim.
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 arose at the Carrier's Heavy Repair Car Shop at Erwin, Tennessee. Previously the general practice in bulletining any position or small group of positions had been to state its definite primary nature and location, adding the catch-all clause "and such other carman's duties as may be assigned." But by a changes of practice in about 1963 the bulletin was generalized so as to read: "General repairs to freight cars," or "General carmen's duties at heavy repair car shop," followed by the catch-all clause. With regard to vacancies the name of the preceding incumbent continued to be shown.
The nature of the controversy appears from the General Foreman's letter of May 14, 1963 to the General Chairman, in which he said:
The Carrier's position thus is that with the exception of relatively few positions, as in welding and, certain fabricating operations, it must continue to bulletin most jobs as "general repairs to Freight cars," etc.
The Employe's positon is that this violates the employe's seniority right under Rules 10 and 17 to be accorded his "preference in filling such job or vacancy that may be desirable to him; that except to the extent afforded by the name of the last incumbent it does not give him sufficient information to determine what job or vacancy may be desirable to him; and that in fact it does not permit him to select any desirable phase of his work according to seniority, but permits foremen to assign junior members to work preferred by their seniors.
It seems apparent that the new practice infringes seniority rights in both respects complained of, and that the Carrier does not consider that even the stated name of the last occupant of the advertised position gives the successful bidder a preferential right to any definite phase of freight car repair work, such as dismantling, fitting up, rivet crew service, or cleaning and repairing of triple valves or of air brake pistons, as under former bulletins. In that connection we approve the following statement of this Division in Award No. 2148:
Many awards of this Division have upheld the employes' right to sufficient bulletin information to identify the jobs or vacancies desirable to them. See Awards. No. 962, 1440, 1574, 2148, 2294 and 3888. In fact, the Carrier concedes that bulletins "should show sufficient information to enable the employe to identify the job and to determine whether or not the position is desirable to him." Obviously this must include more than such work descriptions as "general repairs to freight cars" or "general carman's duties at heavy repair car shop."
Some positions are necessarily more general than others; but to give full effect to seniority rights all bulletins should be as specific as reasonably practicable and as traditionally worded. At the same time, the Employes should conform to the Carrier's right to divert their services incidentally to other carman's duties when necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of work and utilization of their time. With such mutual appreciation and observance of each other's interests and needs, prior bulletining practices should be resumed.
This Board cannot direct the parties in their work; but we hold that the descriptions of bulletined positions should be as above stated to accord with the Agreement, and we remand the subject matter of this dispute to the duly authorized
In support of the claim the Employes submitted as Exhibits A-1 to A-7, inclusive, seven bulletins dated from October 7 to December 23, 1963, involving 13 carmen's positions, to show the new practice complained of, and as Exhibits B-1 to B-7, inclusive, seven bulletins dated from February 14 to October 31, 1957, involving 17 carmen's positions, to show the prior practice.
Of the seven "A" bulletins, in addition to the catch-all clause, three merely designated the duties as "general carman's duties at heavy repair shop;" but one of them added "(R. C. Edwards, Jr. vacancy)." The other four merely designated the duties as "general repairs to freight cars;" but only one of them failed to add the name of the last occupant of the position, or such designation as "relief yard crane operator" or "derrick ground crew", the latter showing also the name of the last occupant. Thus three of the seven "A" bulletins were limited to a general designation of duties without further job identifications. While these were submitted as typical bulletins, it was not stated that the two types of bulletins ran in those proportions. The same
is true of the twenty samples of 1963 and 1964 bulletins issued before the filing of this docket which were shown by the Carrier, all but four of which stated the names of the last occupants of the jobs to be filled.
All of the "B" exhibits shown by the Employes as evidence of the prior practice showed, in addition to the catch-all clause, a designation of the principal or primary duties of the position, such as "fit-up crew", "punch operator", "triple valve cleaner & repairer", "cleaning and servicing air brake pistons", "heating, bucking, sticking and driving rivets", "welding on cars and car parts", and "fitting up cars - reaming and riveting at fit up station". Four of the "B" bulletins named the last preceding holders of the positions. Thus all of them identified the jobs sufficiently. However, it was not contended that under the prior practice all bulletin job descriptions were so specific; in fact it was conceded that not all of them could be; but the numbers or proportions of bulletins properly or by practice containing only general job descriptions cannot be determined from the record. It shows that a proposal was made by the Employes that 5% of the jobs might be bulletined in general terms, subject to certain conditions; but as no agreement was reached in the matter it is impossible to determine which specific positions, or even what proportion of the positions, have been in the past or will be in the future properly bulletined in general rather than in specific terms. Consequently it would have been pointless to sustain the second part of the claim by ordering the Carrier to re-advertise all vacancies or positions which have been "erroneously bulletined;" for if the parties should be unable to agree as to that, and should request an interpretation of the term "erroneously bulletined", this Board could only point out, as above stated, that it could not determine from the record what proportion of the positions, or which specific ones, had been "erroneously bulletined".
It is possible that the parties can determine whether the positions included in the three bulletins shown as Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-4, namely, Bulletins Nos. 98, 108 and 138, are positions which under the prior practice would have been more specifically described, and perhaps others may be agreed upon.
However even in those instances the proper remedy would not necessarily be the re-advertising of each position involved, to the detriment of present occupants, and perhaps some disruption of service. If in any instance one or more employes are found who would have bid upon a certain position had it been more specifically bulletined, the senior employe should be allowed to take it, provided a way can be worked out between the parties. But a rebulletin would not necessarily bring that result; it would simply throw the position open for bids by all interested employes, and not merely the employes who would have bid for it originally. Furthermore, the present occupants of such positions are entitled to some consideration, since certainly errors in prior bulletins were not their fault; they might even be entitled to question the validity of bulletins to fill their positions, which are not new jobs or vacancies. (Rule 10).
For those reasons the second part of the claim was not sustained, but the subject matter was remanded to the property for such adjustment as the parties might give it.
It did not seem necessary to go into these details in Award 4839, which clearly did not direct the Carrier to re-bulletin positions. On the contrary,