The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in
addition Referee George S. Ives when award was rendered.
EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: This Local Committee, consisting of P. E. Moore, R. H. Barmore, and C. A. Moores, Jr., hereinafter referred to as the Claimants, is the duly authorized committee to represent the Electrical Workers on the Kentucky, Tennessee, and St. Louis Division South on the Illinois Central Railroad Company, hereinafter referred to as the Carrier.
Grievance rules on this seniority district require that the Local Committee handle grievances with the General Foreman and Master Mechanic.
The Local Committee must also hold conferences with the Local Officials, Consisting of the General Foreman and Master Mechanic.
Claimants requested a conference with Master Mechanic J. N. Fox to discuss grievances they were handling with the Local Officials. Carrier complied with this request and arranged a conference to be held in the Division Electrical Foreman's office in Fulton, Kentucky. Claimants met with Carrier's Representative, Assistant Master Mechanic N. E. Lahndorff, in this conference on April 15, 1965.
This dispute has been handled with all officers of the Carrier designated to handle such disputes, including Carrier's highest designated officer, all of whom have declined to make satisfactory adjustment.
The agreement effective April 1, 1935, as amended September 1, 1949, as subsequently amended, is controlling.
during working hours. The company has always paid local committeemen for attending conferences with local officials at their home point. For example, Fulton Local Committeeman L. N. Dane did not lose any time when he attended the April 15 meeting at Fulton.
Many rules provide benefits or privileges for certain employes that they do not provide for others. Rule 37 is such a rule. It provides local committeemen with the opportunity to discuss grievances during working hours at their home point without loss of time; it does not grant this privilege to other employes or other union officials. If the union believes that there was discrimination, it logically follows that that last paragraph of Rule 37 is inherently discriminatory. Therefore, the union must argue that any provision in an agreement which provides benefits to some employes and some union officials and not to others is inherently discriminatory. The company has treated all local committeemen fairly and equally and has not done anything to interfere with their union activity. The charge of discrimination is entirely without merit.
The brotherhood contends that the claimants who worked at Paducah were local committeemen and entitled to compensation under Rule 3 7 for unexpectedly attending a meeting with non-Paducah officials over Fulton grievances at Fulton, Kentucky. They also alleged discrimination under Rule -Il.
The company pointed out that the meeting at Paducah was not a scheduled conference as intended under Rule 37 since two of the participants were not entitled or scheduled to attend. The company showed that the claimants were not local committeemen, but were actually district or division officials. It also pointed out that a local committeeman by definition is confined to a particular plant or point. The company demonstrated that if the union's position were followed to the logical conclusion, the railroad would suffer a great unnecessary loss of time and expense. In addition, the company proved by an interpretation made by Manager of Personnel Young and Union General Chairman Cruse in 1938 that Rule 37 does not provide for compensation for local committeemen when they travel away from their home point to attend conferences with officials of other points.
The Brotherhood's charge of discrimination against the claimants under Rule 41 is without merit.
Management waives oral hearing unless it is requested by the union, but reserves the right to answer its submission.
We ask the Board to uphold the parties long standing interpretation of Rule 37 as evidenced by the 1938 Interpretation and deny this 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 employ e 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.
Petitioner contends that three claimants, who constitute the duly authorized grievance committee on Carrier's District Number 13, were deprived of their regular compensation while meeting with "local" officials of the Carrier concerning grievances at Fulton, Kentucky on April 15, 1965. Petitioner avers that Local Chairman Paul E. Moore, Paducah Committeemen R. H. Barmore and C. A. Moores, Jr. are entitled to three hours pay each for attending the Fulton meeting under Rules 37 and 41 of the Schedule Agreement between the parties. The pertinent language of Rule 37 provides:
Carrier contends that claimants attended the meeting at Fulton, Kentucky at the request of Chairman Paul E. Moore to discuss pending grievances at Fulton and not grievances at Paducah, the local seniority point where all three Claimant are regularly assigned and also serve as Members of the local grievance committee. It is also the position of Carrier that the meeting was held with officials of the Carrier frorn Memphis, who are not "local officials" at Paducah, and that prior interpretations of Rule 37 have established that said Rule does not provide for compensation for local committeemen when they travel away from their home point to attend conferences with Carrier's officials from other points.
The thrust of Petitioner's averment is that the Claimants were duly designated "local" committeemen certified for the "territory" involved, which included both Paducah and Fulton. However, no probative evidence was offered to refute Carrier's contention that no similar payments for such conferences away from Paducah have been allowed in the past.
Careful examination of Rule 37 clearly discloses that the type of conference to be held during regular working hours without loss of time to committeemen is confined to those between "local" officials and "local" committees. Apparently, Claimants in this dispute served both as "local committeemen at Paducah and as the duly constituted District Grievance Committee with jurisdiction throughout the territory encompassed by District No. 13, which includes Fulton, Kentucky. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the meeting held at Fulton was for the purpose of considering grievances at Fulton, and that the "local" Committeeman at Fulton attended said meeting during working hours for which he was compensated by the Carrier,
The pertinent language of the Agreement is clear and unequivocal and no evidence of conflicting past practice is before us.