PARTIES TO DISPUTE:

 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS,
 FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYES



STATEMENT OF CLAIM: "Claim of the General Committee of the Brotherhood of- Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes on the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company that the Carrier violated the clerks' agreement;









2. That extra gang timekeeper positions necessary to bring about a




1696-2 325

EMPLOYES' STATEMENT OF FACTS: "On February 13th, 1941, following observations made by the employes the division chairman wrote to the division superintendent, copy attached and designated as Exhibit (a) and requested that timekeeper positions be established to perform the clerical work in lieu of extra gang foremen and/or others.


"On February 24th, 1941 the superintendent replied to the division chairman's letter of February 13th, 1941, copy attached and designated as Exhibit (b) and held that there was not a sufficient number of men on the gangs to necessitate a timekeeper, and that the assistant foremen were taking care of the work of keeping the time, etc.


"On March 6th, 1941, the general chairman progressed the dispute to the general superintendent and claim for the three senior employes on the western district seniority roster entitled to perform the work was filed and asked that they be compensated for wage loss sustained, less amounts earned in other employment, if any. Copy of the general chairman's communication to the general superintendent dated March 6th, 1941 is attached hereto and designated as Exhibit (c).



"On March 16th, 1941, the general superintendent wrote to the general chairman, copy attached and designated as Exhibit (d) and sustained the decision of the division superintendent.


"On March 19th, 1941 the dispute was referred to the Chief Personnel Officer on appeal from the decision of the general superintendent, to which letter the employes attached copy of their submission to the general superintendent and invited the Chief Personnel Officer's attention to and study of Award 1295 of the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and in the fifth paragraph thereof said:


'We shall appreciate it if you will go over this matter thoroughly giving it the consideration it doubtless merits and advise if you are not willing to establish extra gang timekeeper positions and if you are we can meet in conference and discuss the disposition of the claims.'

`Copy of employes' letter to the Chief Personnel Officer dated March 19th, 1941 is attached hereto and designated as Exhibit (e).


"On March 24th, 1941 the Chief Personnel Officer advised, copy attached and designated as Exhibit (f),


`After I have had an opportunity to look into the matter will write you further.'

"On May 9th, 1941 the general chairman traced the chief personnel officer for a decision. Copy of this communication is attached and designated as Exhibit (g).


"On May 17th, 1941 the general chairman discussed the dispute with the chief personnel officer in conference in Mr. Roll's office. The chief personnel officer did not during these discussions indicate what his decision would be, but said he would write us later and render same.

1696-13 336
 Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Em
 ployes. It does not in any manner whatsoever give
 unto those classes of employes a monopoly on the
 work generally performed by the classes of employes
 so designated in the rule; in other words, they have
 no monopoly on clerical work. Clerical work is per
 formed to some extent by the vast majority of rail
 road employes in some form or another, and certainly
 this rule could not be construed as forbidding a fore
 - man in charge of an extra gang to make a pencil
 notation on a form of a mans name and the hours
 he worked during the day, which the foreman sends to
 the Carrier's accounting offices for preparation of
 payrolls and other records, all of which work in these
 accounting offices is handled by the clerical workers
 classified as such and subject to this rule (Scope
 Rule 1).
 Definition of Clerk. This rule is merely for the purpose of classifying em
 Rule 2: ployes of the specific payroll classifications named in
 Rule 1 as between those coming under groups 1, 2
 or 3 ; in other words, if an employe with a payroll
 classification of the classes named in group 2 or 3 in
 Rule 1 performs four hours per day clerical work, h,·
 will be placed in group 1 and taken out of groups
 2 or 3.

 Promotion Basis-Rule 4. )
 Seniority Districts-Rule 5. )
 Vacancies-New Positions-Rule 6. )None of these rules have the remotest
 Bulletins-Rule 10. )connection with the subject of this
 New Positions-Rule 68. )dispute.
 Rates-Rule 76. )
 Date Effective-Rule 82. )

"This entire case is an effort on the part of the employes to create a preposterous situation by making a job for a clerical worker to be paid anywhere from $5.00 to $6.00 per day to keep the time (pencil record) of laborers in charge of a foreman working out on the line of road on track rehabilitation work. If he was employed there would be not to exceed 10" to one-half hour's work for him to do in an eight hour period-this is illustrative of the absurdity of the Employes' request.


"There is no rule in the wage schedule agreement we have with the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes that would justify or permit the Board to sustain the Employes' petition."


OPINION OF BOARD: The facts, contentions, and principles involved in this dispute are substantially the same as in Docket CL-1656, Award 1694, which award controls the decision in this dispute.


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;


That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

1696-14 337

 That no violation of the rules has been shown.

Claim denied.


ATTEST: H. A. Johnson
 Secretary

 Dated at Chicago, Illinois, this 21st day of January, 1942.