I. L. Sharfman, Referee PARTIES TO DISPUTE:
"Claim of Raymond Brown and Asa P. Brown for restoration of their former positions as storehouse man at the Hartle, South Carolina, Roundhouse Sub-Storehouse as of October 5, 1934."
STATEMENT OF FACTS.-The following statement of facts was jointly certified by the parties:
"Idffective October 5, 1934, the positions of storehouse man held by Raymond Brown and Asa P. Brown at the llayne, South Carolina, Roundhouse SnlYStorchonae were abolished and the employees in question were permitted to exercise their seniority in accordance with the rules of the storehouse employees' agreement of May 1, 1934.
"The duties of the positions consisted of issniug material and supplies kept at the sub-storehouse, prepare requisitions for such issues, assist in checking material stock and keeping material stock in order and storehouse flours clean. Tim duties of issuing oils and waste, loading and unloading material shipments were performed if, as, and when necessary,
"VV'llon the two positions of storehouse man were abolished the roundhouse foreman at Hayne was provided with a key to the sub-storehouse so that he might enter the same and obtain material when needed. A list of tile material so obtained is left for the first shift storehouse man who prepared proper charge."
An agreement between the parties governing the hours of service and working conditions of storehouse employes and bearing effective date of May 1, 1934, was placed in evidence, and the specific rules (-tied as hearing upon the disposition of the dispute were as set forth below in the positions of the parties.
POSITION OF EMPLOYEES.-The contentions of the employees were stated as follows:
"The duties of the position in question are duties which rightfully belong to employees coming within the scope of the storehouse employees' agreelocal, and so long as there is work to be performed it should be performed by employees coming within the scope of the agreement and not by employees of another department who are prohibited from performing craftsmen's duties hi their own department, or by employees of some otbor craft.
"little 1-'Scope' of the storehouse employees' agreement carries the following not(,:
"'Nothing in this agreement shall prevent the working of storehouse labor in shops or vice versa; this shall not, however, be done for the purpose of abolishing positions.'
"At the time the agreement was entered into, it was, and had been for many, many years prior thereto the practice to maintain positions of storehouse employees only when the material issued was sufficient in volume to justify tile expense of maintaining such positions, and when the expense incident to the maintenance of such positions could not be justified, arrangements were made to have the material handled in the same manner that material has been handled on the second and third shifts at Hayne since October b, 1934. Rule 40 of the agreement clearly authorizes a continuation of the methods and practices of handling material and supplies by other than Stores Department employees which were in effect at the time the storehouse employees' agreement was negotiated, and was incorporated for the purpose of protecting carrier ill such changes when, as and if conditions warranted.
"II, their position the employee, quote Rule 41 and tile 'Termination' clause of tile agreement, and contend that `the action of the carrier in this case was in violation of the termination clause of the above rule is that positions were removed from under the agreement without the requirements as provided in rule -11, and as further provided for in the amended Railway Labor Act.' The language of the rules ill question is clear, and, after reading these rules, it will be manifest to anyone versed in the application of schedule rules that they have 110 application in the instant ease. The basic rates of pay of storehouse employees at Rayne Storehouse have in no way been changed, nor little any of tile other rules of the agreement been changed. All that was done was to abolish two unnecessary and unjustified positions and arrange for the small amount of material required oil the second and third shifts to be handled ill a manner that, as herehlbefore stated, is clearly authorized by Ittlle 40 of the agreement.
"While the employees contend in their submission that in this case there was a violation of the provisions of the amended Railway Labor Act, they fail to say what provisions of the Act were violated or in what respect. The carrier has not been advised upon what part of (11e amended Act they rely bill denies there has been any violation thereof.
`tia) That rules of storehouse employees' current agreement of May 1, 1934, do not support tile employees' contention;
"(b) That Rule 40 of the agreement clearly authorizes the coldhnlance of the past practice of many years' standing of having material and Sup plies handled by other than storehouse employees; and,
"(e) That storehouse elnployces oil fine second and third shifts at Hayne are not needed, and to maintain such positions could only result in ltnnecessary and unjustified expense and 1uneeonomital operation.
"For these reasons, the claim of the employees should be denied and we ask that the Board so decide."
OPINION OF BOARD.-It is well established ruder collective agreements of the character here involved that while the carrier is free to abolish positions, such work as remains in connection with these positions least lm performed by the class of employes to which the agreement applies. In the instant case tile agreement is made by Rule 1 to apply to tile work of storellouselnell, and although the right of working storehouse lahor in vllolls or vice versa is reserved, it is expressly stipulated that this right shall not he exercised for the purpose of abolishing positions. That some portion of the work of the abolished positions in the handling of materials and supplies did remain and is being performed by employac other than storehouselllen appears to be amply supported by the record. The carrier relies upon Rule 40 of the agreement for justification of Its procedure. This rule, however, was merely designed to pro-
test the carrier against being required to change methods and practices of handling materials and supplies by other than Store Department Employes which existed at the time of tile negotiation of the agreement It is in the nature of a saving clause with respect to past policy; it does not authorize the adoption of like policy from and after tile date of tile agreement. But while there leas been a violation of the agreement as of October 5, 1934, it does not follow that the identical positions must necessarily be restored. The essence of the violation has consisted in the performance of the work of storehousemen by employes not embraced within tile scope of the Storehouse Employes' Agreement, and the violation can be removed by restoring the work thus performed to employes falling within the scope of that agreement. Under these circumstances tile equities of the situation will be fully met if the parties determine through negotiation the actual extent of the violation, the just measure of loss resulting therefrom for which compensation should be made, and the character of tile arrangement whereby the work of storehousemen can be restored to employes covered by the Storehouse Employes' Agreement.
FINDINGS.=the '1 'bird Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving t1., parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon and upon the whole rec Ord and all tile evidence finds and holds:
That the carrier and the employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within tile meaning of tile Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of tile Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
'that the facts of record disclose al violation of the operative agreement as of October 5, 1934.
Claim sustained to the extent that it is herein found that the work of storehousemen is being performed by employes not embraced within the scope of the Storehouse Employes' Agreement. The parties are directed to determine through negotiation the actual extent of tile violation, the just measure of loss resulting therefrom for which compensation should be made, and the character of the arrangement whereby the work of storebonsemen call be restored to employes covered by tile Storehouse Employes' Agreement.