BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT
HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY
"Violation of schedule agreement effective November 1st, 1929, and provisions of wage agreements effective October 1601, 1923, March 16th, 1928, and August 1st, 1928, by discontinuance of the classification "Caller" at Galewood Transfer Platform, Chicago, Illinois, July 7th, 1931. Claim of Ray Emerick, Daniel O'Ilerron, John Shorter, et al, for restoration of the established and agreed upon differential of five (5) cents per hour above truckers' rates and for monetary loss sustained retroactive to July 7th, 1931."
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 a result of a deadlock, Lloyd K. Garrison was called ill its Referee to sit with the Division as a member thereof.
There is in evidence an agreement between the parties effective November 1, 1929.
Prior to July 7th, 1931, the movement of freight handled at Gafewood Transfer Platform teas accomplished by men working in gaugs. These gangs were then composed of a Cheeker, a Caller, and one or more Truckers. The Checker was paid $5.74 per day, the Caller, 54 cents per hour, and the Trucker. 49 cents per hour. These rates were effective August 1st, 1928, in the case of Checkers and Callers, and March 16th, 1928, in the case of the Truckers, and resulted front wage agreements negotiated by and between representatives of the employes and representatives of the Carrier.
Effective July 7th, 1931, the Carrier abolished all positions chlssificd as "Caller." This action was taken by the Carrier without notice to tlic claployos or their representatives. The employes affected by tile action imnledialoly exenised their seniority to displace junior men employed as Truckers in order to obtain employment.
Subsequent to July 7th, 1931, the movement, of freight lucntlled at Galewood Transfer Platform has been handle(] by men working !it gangs just as it was prior to July 7th, R)31; tile gangs have been composed of a Checker, paid $5.74 per day ,and two or more men, both of whole have been classified as Trucker and are being pair] 49 cents per hour.
Rule 4'3 of the agreement between the parties provides as follows:"RATES DISCONTINUED.-Established positions shall not be discontinued and new ones created under a different tille covering relatively the same class of work for the purpose of reducing tl:e rate of pay or evading the application of these rules."
The employes claim drat the Callers now classified as Truckers are performing "relatively the same class of work-" as before and that therefore the rule has been violated. The Carrier contends that Rule 42 does not apply because no "new positions" have been created, the position of Trucker having always existed. Rut we think drat such a technical reading of the rule is not warranted and that it was Intended to apply to a case of this sort Profit the point of view of tire Callers, they were being shifted to new positions while, as they claim, still performing relatively the same class of work, and from their point of view and under the fair meaning of the rule in question, it can make no difference whether their new positions were called by an old title or a new one. If tire facts sustain their claim, they were still doing the work of Callers, but miler tire title, new to them, of Truckers, and at a lower rate of pay. In the broader sense, moreover, a Trucker who is in fact doing Caller's work is doing something that teas not done before and can therefore be said to be occupying a new position within tire meaning of Rule 42. Under this view of the rule, we do not need to inquire whether, as claimed by the employes and denied by the carrier, the action taken violated other rules or violated certain provisions of the Railway Labor Act.
The real issue, then, is whether or not after tire change of title the men previously employed as Callers were doing relatively life same class of work as before. The question is entirely one of fact and must be decided on tire record, which includes stenographic testimony of various employee in an investigation held in the office of the agent of Galewood station on September 10, 11731. Making allowance for tile filet drat some of the witnesses !if that investigation were personally interested in eatablisbing the claim now mail(. and that other witnesses were kindly disposed tinvard those thus interested, the testimony as a whole indicates no sqrhstantial difference in the work done by the Callers before rind after the change. All that they ceased to (to was to call out to the Checker the marks on the frei,lrt and to write down in chalk the boa and run numbers givexl them by tire Checker. Instead, the Checker looked at the marks find did fire chalking.
It seems difficult to suppose that the mere operation of calling null cl;alking won](] alone account for the differential in pay between tire positions of Caller and Trucker. While the testimony it at points conflicting and not overly clear throughout, it indicates that the chief allot most onerous duties of the Caller, the duties which occupied most of his time anti wiliob seem to have accounted for tire differential rate, were the duties of sorting the freight as it arrived, observing the rnarlcs, arranging the packages so that those which should go on the same truck would go on the same truck. and loading tire trucks accordingly. The Truckers' principal duties were to take the trucks when loaded to their proper destination, according to the box amt full numbers, and unload them. For the former duties, more intelligence and literacy were required than for tire bitter, amt the difference in the type of man required aryl in tire degree of responsibility involved seem to gave accounted for the differential in the pay.
Tire case would be simple were it not for the fact that, as the testimony shows, tire two jobs sometimes overlapped, Truckers sometimes being called upon to sort and load and Callers sometimes being called upon to do some hauling. Certainly no completely clear-cut line can be drawn between the two positions bill tire effect of the testimony is that the primary responsibility and duty of tile Caller and the work upon which he was chiefly engaged loins to soft and load and that this work required a higher competence than that of Trucking, which was the principal function of the Trucker, even though he may at tunes have assisted ill some of tire work of the Caller. After the position of (.`.tiler was abolished, the testimony indicates that in each gang the former Caller was the one upon whom the Checker primarily relied for the proper sorting find loading of tire freight. The calling and chalking seems to have been a lovely incidental part of the work and its absorption by the Checker arm the abolition of lire position of Caller seems only to be explainable by a desire to ecnxvnize by reducing the rate of pay of tire (,:liters.
We do not necd to inquire into the situation at smaller stations where Callers have never been employed. According to the record. Galewood Station was and is life busiest transfer point oil the load, the two platforms having a capacity of approximately `=7)4 cars. Tile work before the change and after the change