DISPUTE.helper at wellinto, Texas, to that of clerk, effective October 1, 1933, to October helper at wellington, Texas, to that of clerk, effective October 1, 1936, to October 24, 1933, and from December 2, 1933, forw:ir,l_"
FINDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the, whole record and all the evidence, finds that:
The. Carrier and the employe 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.
The parties to said dispute were given due notice of hearing thereon.AS a result of a deadlock, Willard Iv. 1Iotchk,ss was appointed as Referee to sit with the Division as a member thereof.
The following statement of facts is jointly certified by the parties, and the Third Division so finds:
"There is a position of station helper at Wellington, Texas. Employes allege that the duties of that position entitle the incumbent thereof to be classified and rated as a clerk under the definition of clerical worker contained in Rule 2-(a) of the Clerks' agreement, reading:
"`Clerical Workers-Employes who regularly devote not less than four (4) hours per day- to the writing and calculating incident to keeping records and accounts, rendition of bills, reports, and statements, handling of correspondence and similar work.'
"During the period December 13 to 19, both inclusive, 1933, joint observation check was conducted by representatives of the Employes and the Caprier of the actual service performed on this position and they are in dispute as to the results of that check with respect to the division between clerk work and non-cleric work.
An agreement exists between the parties bearing effective date of December 1, 1924, and in addition 1o Rule 2-(a), quoted in the joint statement of facts, the petitioner cites Rule 60 thereof, reading:
"Rates.-Established positions shall not be discontinued and new ones created under a different title covering relatively the same class of work for the purpose of reducing the rate of pay or evading the application of this agreement."
Petitioner contends that the duties assigned to and performed by the incumbent of the position in question are practically all of a clerical nature and such that would entitle hum to be classified and rated as a clerical worker under the provisions of Rule 2-(a). The petitioner also contends that effective December 2, 1933, the carrier abolished a position of Clerk and created a position classified as Station Helper and that the incumbent of the latter posi-
Lion conlintled to perform relatively the same class of work, at a reduced rate of pay, as that performed by tile employe previously classified as clerk, thereby violating Rule 60.
The petitioner further contends that tile joint observation cheek covering the period December 1°· to 19, both dates inclusive, 1933, referred to is the joint statement of facts and filed as Employes' Exhibit "A", proves that the position in question should properly be classified and rated as a clerical worker ulldor the provisions of Rule 2-(a).
The carrier contends "that under the provisions of Rule 2r(a) of tile Clerks' agreement, the position of station helper at Wellington, Texas, is in no sense whatever a clerk position and that the inarubant of that position does not regularly perform the required kind of work of sufficient degree to make it a clerk position, and this is proven by the results of the joint observation check conducted in the period of seven consecutive days, December 13 to 19, both inclusive, 1933." "Oil each day," carrier says, "tire amount of clerk work was considerately less than four hours."
The earricr also contends that prior to October :74, 1933, the station force collxisud of two employes, namely kill agent-lelegrapllcr; arid a station helper; flint oil t]Cbober 25, 1933, :1 cashier was eolployed because of seat~ollal business and that from that date to November 30, 7933, the force consisted of three employee, viz., :;n agent-telegrapher, a cashier and a station helper; that on December 1, 193:3, the force was reduced to two employes, namely agent-telegrapher and station helper, and that Rule (i0 of tile agreement was not violated.
RECAPITULATION. This case involves an emplojee apparently qualified toThe joint check is valuable insofar as it narrows tho zone of dispute and gives at least a partial basis for an opinion concerning the items oil whi<4l tile parties disagree. Since it is largely a matter of judgment as to the degree to which particular activities are clerical or non-clerical, scale disagreement is natural.
The record seems to show aygreelllent that roughly ,ale-third of the work was clerical and one-sixth non-clerical, leaving about one-half of the work in dispute. It is agreed that regular performance of four hours' clerical work a nay entitles an employee to be rated as a clerk.
Petitioners have emphasized the fact that the rules do not require that work that has to do with tile various records which have to be kept shall involve actual recording or calculating, but that it only needs to be incident thereto or similar work. They also point out that only such manual work its does not require clerical ability is excluded from the classification clerical, find they interpret the work in dispute as either being incident to keeping records or similar work, or 0.s work requiring clerical ability. Petitioners also cite the population of Wellington and its increase of 811,'n front 1920 to 7930. Assuming that tile growth has continned, they say that this fact shows the importonce of the work to be (lone at the Wellington station.
The carrier says that the petitiomrs are ill error in shlfing that the position in dispute carried a classifientionl of clerk front October 24. 19.',3, to December 2, 1933, quoting the carrier's language:
"Prior to October 24, 1933, the station force coleistcr! of tlvo cl:lpioyecs, (lamely an agent-telegrapher and et :illation helper on Orhober ::5, 1:;;5, a cashier was employed because of seasonal business and from that date to November 30. 19'33, or it period of about five weeks, ill" force co-usisted of three employes, namely kin agent-lele_rahller, it c;lshicr fill[ a si.ltion helper; on Decenllar 1.7!1;13, the force reluroell to tlvo cmllloyces, namely agent-telegrapher and station helper:"
"Good evidence that the carrier ill applying Rule. 2 I::ls 4h-ale so (w-reclly lies in the fact that of the classes o,* crnploycs repreenlell h; tLe Brother-
hoed of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Ilnu<llers, Express and Station Employees on this railway over SOS/o are classified and rated as clerk positions."
The carrier emphasizes the lack of business and depression as the reason why only a station helper and not a clerk is needed.
OPINION OE THE REYEREEJlhe Referee is of the opinion that (he claimant was speruling regularly less than four hours a day oil work which could rightly be classed us clerical (luring the period to whieli the joint check applied. In all the circumstances, the relatively small amount of business at the time the claim arose appears to have justified the carrier in continuing to employ a station helper at that tune instead of a clerk.
This ruling, however, should not inhibit petitioners from requesting reclassifie>itiun when, as, and if a different state of facts appears to justify such a request.