"Claim by the American Train Dispatchers Association, representing the Train Dispatchers in the employ of the Erie Railroad Company that-
"(a) The rules of the existing schedule-agreement provide that the seniority roster covering a dispatching office, before or after another dispatching office has been consolidated with such office, shall show the mines of all those who, under the rides of such Agreement, hold seniority rights as Train Dispatcher in the dispatching office where employed; that such named be dovetailed according to the seniority acquired by each man under the provisions of the rules, and that train dispatchers shown on such roster be permitted to exercise such seniority to any and all train dispatcher positions in such dispatching offce.
"(b) Management of this carrier be ordered to apply the rules in accordanec with paragraph (a) hereof in all dispatching offices on the system, and that where two or more dispatching offices have heretofore been consolidated into one, the intent of the rules as indicated by paragraph (a) hereof be made effective retroactively with the date of such consolidation and that anyone who has sustained any monetary loss by reason of the rules not having been applied in accordance with the above be compensated by the carrier for any and all such loss."
STATEMENT OF FACTS.-On March 15, 1932, or shortly thereafter, the dispatching office at Meadville was abolished and the train dispatching and dispatching force were moved to Salamanca and placed in the same office and under the supervision of the Salamanca Chief Dispatcher the same as the Salamanca dispatchers.
At approximately the same time a portion of the work and a portion of the force in the Susquehanna dispatching office were moved to Hornell and placed under the supervision of the Chief Dispatcher at that point. In October 1934 the balance of the train dispatching work and force were also moved to Hornell and placed under the supervision of the Chief Dispatcher at that point, the office at Susquehanna being abolished entirely.
There is evidence of au agreement covering train dispatchers effective May 16, 1929, and the following rules are cited as applicable:
"Seniority rights will be limited to each dispatching office. Where consolidations have been made, no change in positions will be made until vacancies occur."
"Seniority as Train Dispatcher will date from the tune service as such is first perormed."
"In the event that two or more dispatching offices are combined, divided, or new offce created, involving two or more seniority districts, the re-arranged positions will be filled in accordance with ability and seniority
'that Ituie J prwid,·s that a roster showing the seniority standing of train dispatchers trill be prepared for each di.<pntching office.
The petitioner contends that after two dispatching offices are combined, there remains but one office, and that in order to comply with all the rules cited a new roster must be issued to which all the names appearing on the five original rosters trill be dovetailed into one roster, each name with its original seniority date.
POSITION OP CARRTER.-The carrier contends that this dispute is improperly beforv· the Third Division far tln· reneon that the petitioner does not name any specific instance wherein it is contended that the Eric Railroad Company has violated tire intent of any of the rules of the agreement.
The carrier also contends that:"Tile riles definitely do not require or permit the dovetailing of rosters without nnrtatal under;taruling mul agreement * * *."
OPINION OE BOARD.-This clahn covers is its essential facts the conditions originally presented to this Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board in Dochvt No. 'I'D-<7 on which Atvards Nuudx·rs 83 and 190 were rendered. and, together with the conditions of this instant chnia, covers an unadjusted dispute between the Arnertcan Train Dispatchers Association representing the ernp!oyes, arid tile carrier.
In 11x· subrnisNion as to the merits of this clnirn the carrier contends that the matter outlined by the claimants is improperly before this Board because the repr,entatives of the Association did not nntne any specific instance wherein the carrier had tiolated tile intent _f amp of the rules of the agreement. The Board, however, rules that inaamuch as this claim is based upon a dispute between (lip Association, representing the employee. and the carrier, as to the h,terpretlltion and npplie,rtion of certain specified rules of the agreement between the parlies, the claim is properly before this Third Division of the Natirnrnl Railroad Adjustnuerat Domtl, in aecordnnee With the provisions of the Amended Railway Labor Act, approved .June 21, 19,14.
In the opinion and award of this Third Division as outlined in Award No. 86, dated at ("hicngo. Sept. 3, 193,, the ,staheuvra is nude that "hrasunuch as tile ro,4lor js to cov,·r the 'office,' that 11-o seniority of ench roan represented err s,oh roster extends to event, roan covore,l by the Agrecrnent 'In ~~ueh office,' all(] lint there is nothir:r in tile A;reentont p^rmitthrg the snNliwtston of the positions in an ofnoo no a:a to limit the extent of ally employes' seniority to a dispahldng district."
Ill tile slmplemental Award, No. 100. issued by this; Division oil Jnlr. 28, 1?30, covering tile same claim and solbjoot. tile tholings of tile original Award (No. 8.-,l were rtpbeld hit. n, it appeared that the respecfive parties were unable to arrive at a satiAactorp arrangement of the positiol:s in qurslion, eertnirl action tuns ordered Willi respect to dovetailing the nnnlrq of the dicp;,tcln·rs ill tl,e office at Salarrntnca into to re common rester stcrer-ding to their seniority stnndin°.
In support of their contention in ihc in=taut case a s in Dwhet No. TD-77, Aontcl No. 85. the Association quotes Rules G (a) and 9, and in addition specify Rules 0 (b) and S of tile agreemonl between r-he parties.
Rule ti fa) of flo, ngroernent 1?mirr, tl,o soninrity rights of ernployes to each dispntclrin, office, or to the office hl whici, tile dispttcber is stationed, while 6 llrl (,tabltnbes tile tune When scnioritv heeorncs effective.
Rule 8 defines the mnr,nor ill whhl, tile se,lioritv of tndivisln,ll dispatchers twill be determined when two or more di=patching offices, tnvelving two or more soniorhy ,li,iriels. are corahtnod: mud specifics tint rc-arranged positierrs Wit i be filled fn nocordalleo with ahilily lout ;·eniorhy nod hulieah; Hrat tile ability of the dispatcher coupled with lids seuior',ty is to be detornr:ned by means of a Joint Oouferenee hot;voon superiulemlerrta find Contmiltee reproserlting tile Train Itspalchors affected. Time 9 defines the manner of handling and eorrcating, togetilel. will, tile d^tes of posling of a roster showing the seniority standing of Train Dispatchers.
In connection with the Award (No. 8.,) in cnso Doclwf TD -77 and tileparties in calling together the collective Superintendents and Committees affected.
Insofar as the statement is made by the carrier with reference to two or more sets of dispatchers being located for operating reasons in the same office, with no change in their regular work, the Board submits that when two dispatching offices are combined under one head at one location, the fact of such combination, involving two or more seniority districts, or the combining of the work and forces of one dispatching office with that of another, would require the application of Rules 6 (a) and S of the existing agreement between the parties, even though there be no change in the character Of the work performed, and the dispatchers continued to serve the same district as when located in separate offices.
So far as Role 6 (b) of the agreement is concerned this rule provides for the date of seniority from the time service as train dispatcher is first performed, while Rule 9 provides for the preparation of a roster showing the seniority standing of train dispatchers in each dispatching office.
Under these conditions the Board reaffirms the Award rendered in Docket TD-77, Award No. 85, and insofar as this instant case is concerned the opinion of the Board is that the carrier in combining the offices indicated in this claim, with its modified agreement as stated in correspondence between the parties, without applying the terms specified in the rules cited, has violated the terms of the existing agreement between the Association and the carrier.
FINDINGS.-The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:
That the Carrier and the Employees involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employees within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;
That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and
That the evidence in this case tends to show that the claim of the Association, for the employees. be sustained with such modifications as have been agreed to between the parties.
Claim of employees sustained except as modified by the petitioner in letters addressed to the Secretary of this Third Division on February 24th and May 14, 1937, and that any monetary loss sustained by the individual or individuals by reason of the rules not having been applied in accordance with the above outline be compensated by the carrier from the effective date of Award No. 85 in Docket TO 77.