"The carrier contends that no rules of the agreement have been violated and that none can be shown as having been violated. The carrier contends further that the claim is outlawed due to not having been filed and handled prior to the efrective date of the Railway Labor Act, and, due to the lax handling given the claim by the employes' representative. The carrier also contends, without waiving above objections, that the facts of record, which have been made a part of this submission, fully support it in the position taken, and that there is no cause for complaint or claim. It is the carrier's further position, therefore, that the claim be denied in its entirety without qualification."

OPINION OF BOARD: This dispute involves the question of a differential in rates of pay to yard clerical forces, Harahan Yard and Stuyvesant Docks Yard, New Orleans, La., on the Illinois Central Railroad. At New Orleans, the southern terminus of the Railroad, the Carrier established several yards, scattered over the entire territory.

Harahan Yard was constructed in 1900 and placed in operation July, 1901, At that time the rates of pay for the yard clerical forces were the same as paid the yard clerical forces at Stuyvesant Yard. It is the contention of the Carrier that it had trouble securing clerical help at Harahan Yard due to the location of this yard, which was some 10 or 12 miles from the city; that the yard clerks consumed approximately 141/2 hours' time each day in going to work, working the regular shift, and returning to the city. As a result of this condition the Carrier in February 1906 increased the rate of pay of the yard clerks at Harahan Yard $5.00 per month while the rate for employes at Stuyvesant Yard remained the same. This differential rate has continued at Harahan Yard until the present.

The Organization contends that the differential at Harahan Yard existed due to the nature of the work performed at that point. We do not think, however, that the reason for establishing the difference in the rate of pay at these two Yards is material as we will point out later.

In 1931 there was a tremendous slump in business throughout the nation which resulted in a marked decrease in trains operated in and out of New Orleans. Yard operations were changed, and some of the trains formerly run into Harahan Yard were run into Stuveysant Yard. Due to this slump in business forces were decreased at Harahan Yard and increased at Stuyvesant, 14 clerical positions being abolished at Harahan on December 6, 1931, and the yard clerical forces at Stuyvesant being increased three positions on December 7, 1931. The rate of pay for the three positions that were added at Stuyvesant Yard was the same as that of the clerical help at that Yard.

On January 10, 1932, rate of one chief yard clerk at Stuyvesant Yard was increased from $4.62 to $5.04 per day and on the same date one position of chief yard clerk at $5.04, per day was established, On March 10, 1932, on account of further decrease in business three additional yard clerk positions were abolished at Harahan; on July 1, 1932 two additional yard clerk positions were abolished, and on August 16, 1932, the remaining regularly assigned positions were abolished.

The force at Stuyvesant Yard at the time this case was submitted to the Board consisted of seventeen clerks, three less than the twenty mentioned in the claim, and only six more than the number of clerks that were employed at Stuyvesant Yard on December 6, 1931, the day before the yard operation was changed.

It is first contended by the Carrier that this dispute cannot be considered as one pending and unadjusted at the time of the passage of the Railway Labor Act as Amended June 21, 1934 and that therefore this Board has no right to consider it. The claim was first filed with the Carrier on July 5

July 1, 1932. It was appealed to the terminal superintendent on August 1, 1937, to the general superintendent on October 9, 1937, and to the manager of personnel on November 8, 1937. It was declined by the Carrier on June 27, 1938. On August 1, 1940, two years after payment was declined by Carrier, the claim in revised form was handed to the manager of personnel with the request that the Carrier join in submitting the claim to the Board which request was denied September 10, 1940. It should be noted that in the revised form a change was made in that payment was only asked back to the date of July 5, 1937, which was the date the claim was first filed. Thus we find that the claim has been continuing over a period of better than 10 years. To say the least, it has not been prosecuted as vigorously as it should have been. However, we do not find it necessary to pass on the question of whether or not the claim was pending and unadjusted at the passage of the Railway Labor Act, as amended June 21, 1934.

It is the Organization's contention that the Carrier violated the current agreement by discontinuing clerical work and positions at Harahan Yard and arbitrarily transferring such positions to Stuyvesant Yard and requiring employes to perform the work at lower rates of pay. With this we cannot agree. The record does not show that the work at Stuyvesant Yard at present is any different from what it was prior to the close of Harahan Yard. It is true there is a larger volume of work now performed but this has been taken care of by the establishment of additional yard clerical positions at the agreed upon rates of pay for this class of employes at Stuyvesant Yard, the point at which the work is performed. The chief yard clerks' rates have been adjusted upward when their forces were increased, and the clerks have acquiesced in these rates for many years.

This record does not show that the Carrier abolished the positions at Harahan Yard for the purpose of reducing yard clerical rates of pay but rather shows that the positions were abolished on account of change in yard operations which was brought about by diminishing business.

The difference in rate of pay at the Harahan Yard and the Stuyvesant Yard was recognized by the Clerks' Organization and was agreed upon by the Organization and the Carrier when they entered into their agreement on March 26, 1924. In that agreement the rates of pay covering the employes at Harahan Yard was higher than that paid at Stuyvesant Yard. There is no dispute in regard to this. By negotiation, the rates of pay in the 1924 agreement were increased 5 per cent on September 1, 1927 and the differential in rate of pay at Harahan and Stuyvesant was continued. By further negotiations and mediation a further increase of 5 cents per hour was applied to the rates in effect July 31, 1937, continuing the differential rate of pay in the Harahan Yard and the Stuyvesant Yard.

Thus we find that over the period of time set out in this claim there was a differential in the rate of pay in Harahan Yard and Stuyvesant Yard. Negotiations were had and agreements entered into between the Clerks' Organization and the Carrier and in these negotiations and in these agreements there was recognized the difference in pay between the two yards. In view of the facts as set out in this record we find no violation of the agreement on the part of 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 employes involved in this dispute are respectively carrier and employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

AWARD