NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD
Third Division
"Claim' of tile employes that rate of $6.18 per day should have been established for position known as Assistant Time Checker-Clerk, No. 237, in the Superintendent's office at Portland, Oregon, that was created on permanent basis March 1, 1935, and that the employe filling that position should be allowed back pay for the difference between that rate and $5.45 per day, and that position be rebulletined!'
FINDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The carriers 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.Prior to August 1932, Portland Division timekeeping was performed by employes in the Superintendent's office at Portland, Oregon, in a Timekeeping Bureau supervised by a Head Timekeeper. Rates of pay were agreed to between the carrier and representatives of the Brotherhood, for each individual position, deepndent on the character and extent of assigned duties and responsibilities.
In August 1932 a Central Timekeeping Bureau was established in the General Offices at San Francisco, taking over the major portion of timekeeping, theretofore performed by the Division Timekeeping Bureau. Checking timeslips and other related work, which could not be satisfactorily handled from San Francisco, was assigned to such positions as were retained or created in the Division Superintendent's office at Portland.
The position of Head Timekeeper was retained, and such other positions as were, from time to time, necessary to perform the work incident to timekeeping still required of the Division forces. On or about March 1, 1935, a position designated as Assistant Time Checker-Clerk was established, at rate of $5.45 per day. The Brotherhood protested, requesting a rate of $8.18 per day, contending violation of Rule 5 of the agreement between the petitioner and the carrier.
There is in evidence an agreement between the parties bearing effective date of February 1, 1922, and the following rules thereof have been cited by the parties
"Rating Positions.-Positions (not employes) shall be rated and the transfer of rates from one position to another shall not be permitted"
"New Positions.-The wages for new positions shall be in conformity with the wages for positions of similar kind or class in the seniority district where created."
The petitioner contends that based upon the wage agreement of January 1, 1927, and Rule 5 of the current agreement, the position in question should have been rated at $0.18 per day.
The carrier contends that under the wage agreement cited and Rules 4, 5, and 7 of the current agreement, the correct rate for this position is $5.72 per day.
Based on the whole record in this case, including checks of the work performed, submitted by each of the parties, this Division finds that by application of the rules Involved, the proper rate for the position in question is $0.03 per day.