Third Division
Paul Samuell, Referee
DISPUTE.-" Claim by the train dispatchers that the seniority roster for the Salamanca, N. Y., Dispatching office show the names of all those who, under the riles of the current Train Dispatchers' Agreement, hold seniority rights as train dispatcher to positions in that dispatching ofbe ; that such namos be dovetailed according to the seniority standing of each, and that the train dispatchers be permitted to place themselves on dispatcher positions in the Salamanca Dispatching office in accordance therewith."
FINDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are, respectively, carrier and employes 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 parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.As result of a deadlock, Paul Samuell was called in as Referee to sit with this Division. The Joint Statement of Facts in this ease reads:
The dispatching of trains operated over the Allegany Division and over the Meadville Division is performed by train dispatchers located in the Dispatching office at Salamanca, N. Y. Both divisions as well as all train dispatchers in that office are under the jurisdiction of one superintendent and under the supervision of the same chief and night chief train dispatcher."
" Rule 8, (a) current Train Dispatchers' Agreement effective as of May 18, 1929, reads as follows:
"' Seniority rights will be limited to each dispatching office. Where consolidations have been made, no change in positions will be made until vacancies occur.'
"'A roster showing the seniority standing of train dispatchers will be prepared for each dispatching office and will be corrected and posted May 1st of each year.'
Prior to March 15> 1932, the train dispatching office for the Meadville Division was located at Meadville, 1'a., under the jurisdiction of one superintendent, and the dispatching office for the Allegany Division was located at Salamanca, N. Y., under the jurisdiction of another superintendent.
"On or about March 15, 1932. the Meadville Division was added to the jurisdiction of the superintendent of the Allegany Division, whereupon the dispatching of trains operated over the Meadville Division, theretofore performed at Meadville, 1'a., was transferred to the Salamanca, N. Y., dispatching office. Three regularly assigned dispatchers were transferred with their positions to the Salamanca, N. Y., dispatching office, and the others, being extra dispatchers, were so carried on the seniority roster.
"Dleadville Division dispatchers were shown on the roster as having established rights to positions on the Allegany Division as of the date the dispatching of trains was transferred from Meadville to Salamanca, and the Allegany Division dispatchers were shown on the roster as having rights to Meadville Division positions as of that same date."
CONSOL11)ATtoN-RULE 8. In the event that two (2) or more dispatching offices are combined, divided, or new offices created involving two (2) or
more seniority districts, tire rearranged positions will be filled in accordance with ability and seniority and by means of a joint conference between Superintendents and Committees represenling the train dispatchers affected."
The employees' representatives urge flint Roles d (:r) and fl tile the controlling elements to suplort (heir contention and to the effect that tile word "I hrdted" as used in It tile & (a) is synon)-rmors with tile word "coextensive", aril that tile tvords "where rousolidanions have been made no change in positions will be made until vacancies occur" were inserted in tho Agreement to protect the "status quo" and to protect arrangements contrary to tile Rule Ill cases of consolidations mode prior to the date of the Agreement; that inasmuch as the roster is to cover the "office", that the seniority of each roan represented on such roster extends to every position covenol by the Agreement "in such office ", and that there is nothing in the Agreement permitting tile subdivision of the positions in an office so as to limit the extent of any employee's seniority to a dispatching district >!s has been done by the carrier in this dispute.
The carrier contends that it has followed a set formula in following seniority rights in consolbatcsi offices, all of which has met with the approval of a Hia,jority of the dispatchers affected, and that the positions were rearranged on its roster in accordance with the rules and in :in equitable manner.
Employees' relresentalives Cannot rely solely- upon Rules ii (a) and 9 to support their contention. Rule 8 is equally important hr giving consideration to all the facts and ciremnstances in this case.
This Division finds:That the Carrier has not complied with Bills 8, and that it has faibnd to cull a "Joint Conference between Superintendents and Committees representing the train dispatchers affected "; that before rearranging the positions according to tile roster prepared by the carrier it was then and is now the duty of the carrier to call a joint conference between the Superintendent of the carrier and the General Chairman of the American Train Dispatchers Association, or any other Committee appointed by him, to tile end that. said positions will be rearranged in conformity- with such joint conference. By Order of Third Division: